jf^./j: 


Srom  f^e  fetfirart  of 

in  (glemotj?  of 
3ubge  ^amuef  (gtiffer  QBrecfeinribge 

^teeenf  eb  fig 

^otmuef  (gliffer  QSrecfttnribge  feong 

to  t^e  feifirari?  of 

Qprtnceton  ^^^eofogicaf  ^eminctrj 

BbX  5950  .B3763  1844 
^Barnes,  Albert^  1798-1870. 
^Reply  to  a  review  of  the 
tract  on  the  position  of 


REPLY 


TO  A   REVIEW  OF   THE   TRACT 


ON 


THE    POSITION     OF     THE 


EVANGELICAL  PARTY 


IN  THE  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 


CONTAINED 


IN   THE   EPISCOPAL   RECORDER   OF  MARCH    16,  23,    AND   30,  1844. 


BY      ALBERT     BARNES. 


PHILADELPHIA : 

PERKINS    &    PURVES. 

1844. 


/ 


M 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

Since  this  Reply  was  commenced,  the  articles  in 
the  Episcopal  Recorder  to  which  it  refers,  have  been 
collected  and  published  in  a  small  pamphlet.  To 
the  original  articles,  an  appendix  is  added,  designed 
to  contrast  some  opinions  which  I  expressed  two 
years  ago  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  in  two 
articles  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  with  those  ex- 
pressed in  the  Tract  on  the  "  Position  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Party."  I  could  show,  I  think,  if  it  were 
important,  that  there  is  no  real  contradiction  between 
the  views  expressed  in  those  two  articles  ;  but  I  am 
free  to  confess  that  my  views  have  changed — as  I 
suppose  those  of  most  persons  have — about  Epis- 
copacy since  the  time  when  those  articles  were  pub- 
lished. I  used  expressions  then,  which  a  more  inti- 
mate acquaintance  with  the  subject  led  me,  on 
republishing  the  articles  from  the  Spectator  a  year 
since,  considerably  to  change  ;  and  which  I  fear 
there  is  still  further  occasion  to  modify.  It  is  a 
subject  of  sincere  regret  to  me,  that  facts  on  which 
no  observer  of  passing  events  could  close  his  eyes, 
have  made  it  necessary  to  change  those  views  at 
all.  But  who,  ten  years  ago,  could  have  anticipa- 
ted the  developements  which  have  been  made  in  the 
Episcopal  church  since  that  time — developements 
which  have  alarmed  a  large  portion  in  that  denom- 
ination itself,  as  well  as  the  whole  Protestant  com- 
munity around  it  ?  That  my  views,  under  these 
circumstances,   have    been   somewhat   modified,  I 

(iii) 


IV  ADVERTISEMENT. 

cannot  deny,  and  am  willing  to  acknowledge.  He 
must  be  a  remarkable  man  whose  opinions  undergo 
no  change  as  he  grows  older,  and  a  man  singularly 
confident  in  his  earlier  wisdom,  who  is  unwilling  to 
confess  it.  But  in  one  thing  I  have  not  changed — 
in  the  language  of  respect  and  kindness  with  which 
I  design  to  speak  of  that  church,  and  in  my  belief 
that  it  is  a  part  of  the  true  church  of  the  Redeemer, 
and  that  there  are  many  within  it  who  are  la- 
boring as  sincerely  and  as  zealously  as  any  others 
in  endeavouring  to  promote  his  cause.  When  will 
Episcopalians  so  far  modify  their  views  as  to  be- 
lieve there  is  any  true  church  besides  their  own  ? 

There  are  several  things  of  a  personal  character 
in  the  review  in  the  Recorder,  which  I  have  not 
thought  it  proper  to  notice  in  this  reply.  My  ne- 
glecting to  do  so  is  not  to  be  construed  as  an  admis- 
sion of  their  correctness,  but  of  my  conviction  that 
in  a  grave  discussion,  pertaining  to  an  important 
subject,  they  should  not  have  been  admitted  at  all. 
The  public  have  no  interest  in  them,  and  they  con- 
tribute nothing  to  settle  an  inquiry  after  truth,  or 
to  determine  what  is  the  true  character  and  ten- 
dency of  Episcopacy.  Of  this  nature  is  the  follow- 
ing assertion  of  the  Editors :  "  Mr.  Barnes  feels 
compelled  to  preach  to  his  own  congregation,  in 
reference  to  its  errors,  (those  of  Episcopacy,)  for 
the  present  book  was  first  produced  in  this  particu- 
lar shape.''"'  What  is  the  foundation  of  this  asser- 
tion, I  know  not,  but  the  editors  are  certainly  mis- 
informed. Of  the  seventy  pages  of  my  Tract,  nine 
were  copied  indeed  from  a  sermon ;  but  in  the 
sermon  there  was  no  mention  of  Episcopacy  what- 
ever, and  no  particular  reference  to  it.  I  have 
never  felt  "  compelled"  in  any  way  to  preach  about 


ADVERTISEMENT.  V 

Episcopacy,  and  have  never  mentioned  it  in  my 
preaching,  but  in  the  same  respectful  manner  in 
which  I  speak  of  Methodists,  Baptists,  and  Presby- 
terians. 

Perhaps  the  following  assertion  deserves  a  more 
serious  notice.  *'  Has  he  (Mr.  Barnes)  forgotten 
his  own  free  expressions  to  a  late  friend  of  ours, 
made  about  that  time,  (the  time  of  the  difficulties  in 
the  Presbyterian  church,)  to  the  effect  that  a  much 
harder  pressure  would  have  led  him  to  seek  a  min- 
istry in  the  Episcopal  church  1"  There  must  be 
some  mistake  in  this.  My  memory  furnishes  me 
with  no  recollection  of  any  such  conversation  ;  and 
I  am  certain  that  I  never  intended  what  is  here 
said.  That  I  have  said  that  a  harder  pressure 
might  have  induced  me  to  leave  the  Presbyterian 
church,  is  quite  probable.  But  I  never  had  any 
intention  of  connecting  myself  with  the  Episcopal 
church.  Almost  twenty- five  years  since,  notwith- 
standinn;  some  urgent  efforts  made  at  that  time  to 
induce  me  to  join  the  Episcopal  church,  I  entered 
the  Presbyterian  church — a  church,  which,  during 
that  long  time,  observation  and  study  have  taught  me 
more  and  more  to  love,  and  to  regard  in  its  doc- 
trines, and  in  its  mode  of  government,  as  nearer  to 
the  principles  of  the  New  Testament  than  any 
other, 

ALBERT  BARNES. 

Philadelphia,  May  4,  1844. 


REPLY,  &c. 

The  Episcopal  Recorder  contains  a  Review  of 
the  Tract  on  "  the  Position  of  the  Evangelical  party 
in  the  Episcopal  church,"  extended  through  three 
numbers  of  the  paper,  and  under  the  responsibility 
of  the  editorial  department.  This  Review  is  of  such 
a  character,  as  to  demand  from  the  author  of  the 
Tract  a  reply.  With  me  this  reply  shall  be  final  on 
the  subject.  The  public  shall  have  no  occasion  to 
dread  a  protracted  controversy  between  me  and  the 
editors  of  the  Recorder,  and,  unless  something  shall 
appear  from  some  other  quarter  which  will  give  an 
opportunity  of  further  discussing  the  essential  char- 
acter and  tendency  of  Episcopacy',  the  whole  matter, 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  will  be  submitted  to  the 
calm  judgment  of  the  public.  I  have  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  expressing  my  views  at  length,  and  have 
availed  myself  of  a  right,  which  I  had  in  common 
with  all  others,  to  examine  the  subject  of  Episco- 
pacy as  it  is  before  the  public  in  the  best  form  in 
which  it  has  ever  appeared — in  the  efforts  made  by 
the  Evangelical  party.  I  have  stated,  neither  with 
unkindness,  nor  severity  of  language,  what  seemed 
to  me  to  be  insuperable  difficulties  in  their  '  posi- 
tion.' I  have  examined  the  Prayer  Book^— a  book 
which  Episcopalians  are  constantly  commending  to 
the  attention  of  the  community,  as  if  they  were  not 

7 


8 

unwilling  that  it  should  be  examinnd  with  the 
utmost  freedom  ;  and  I  have  compared  the  aims, 
and  plans,  and  efforts  of  the  Evangelical  party  with 
what  I  found  in  that  Book.  These  views,  the  result 
of  all  the  attention  which  I  have  been  able  to  .give 
to  the  subject,  I  have  submitted  to  the  consideration 
of  others,  as  what  seemed  to  me,  to  have  an  impor- 
tant bearincr  on  religion. 

The  editors  of  the  Recorder  as  the  organs  of  the 
Evangelical  party,  have  done,  what  they  had  an 
undoubted  right  to  do,  by  expressing  at  length 
their  views  of  the  Tract.  They  have  had  leisure 
to  examine  its  positions.  They  may  be  supposed, 
without  impropriety,  to  give  utterance  to  the  senti- 
ments of  that  party  in  the  Episcopal  church.  They 
are  familiar  with  the  Prayer  Book,  and  are  abund- 
antly qualified  to  do  justice  to  the  views,  and  to 
vindicate  the  aims  of  the  party  with  which  they  are 
identified.  They  have  ability  to  correct  any  mis- 
apprehensions which  may  have  existed  in  the  mind 
of  the  author  of  the  Tract,  and  of  those  who  think 
with  him,  and  the  subject  has  been  before  them 
from  week  to  week  in  such  a  manner  that  it  may 
be  presumed  that  the  views  which  they  have  now 
expressed  are  all  which  they  deem  it  of  importance 
to  submit  to  the  public  in  reply  to  the  Tract. 
There  is  a  propriety  therefore,  that  with  this  no- 
tice of  their  Review,  ray  participation  in  the  dis- 
cussion should  cease,  nor  can  it  be  presumed  that 
any  thing  which  they  will  be  disposed  to  say  to  this 
reply,  if  they  think  it  of  importance  to  notice  it  at 
all,  will  make  it  proper  that  the  attention  of  the  pub- 
lic should  be  any  farther  solicited  by  me. 

A  few  things  seem  necessary  to  be  said  on  my 
part  to  meet  what  they  have  advanced,  and  to  place 


9 

the  whole  argument  in  my  Tract  where  I  would 
wish  to  leave  it,  after  having  been  carefully  exam- 
ined by  keen-sighted  reviewers.  Having  done  this, 
the  whole  argument,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  will 
be  submitted  to  the  christian  public,  to  be  or  not  to 
be,  as  that  public  shall  judge,  among  the  means  of 
forming  an  opinion  of  the  essential  tendency  of 
Episcopacy. 

The  Tract  was  prepared,  as  was  stated  in  the  com- 
mencement of  it  (p.  5),  "  from  no  desire  to  intermed- 
dle with  the  internal  affairs  of  another  denomination 
of  christians."  The  Episcopal  church  is  prominent- 
ly before  the  community.  It  has  novv^,  and  indeed 
always  has  had  in  this  country,  from  causes  which 
could  easily  be  stated,  a  prominence  before  the  pub- 
lic, which  has  not  been  by  any  means  commensu- 
rate with  its  numbers,  its  real  strength,  or  its  rela- 
tive importance.  I  do  not  speak  of  it  in  derogation 
of  any  excellence  which  it  is  entitled  to,  by  saying 
that  its  claims  have  been  put  forward  with  a  bold- 
ness and  zeal  which  have  been  evinced  by  no 
other  denominations.  Its  friends  might  claim  this 
as  one  of  its  excellencies ;  I  am  not  now  called  on 
to  determine  whether  it  is  an  excellency  or  an  error 
of  the  system.  OC  the  fact  no  one  will  be  disposed 
to  doubt,  that  the  claims  of  Episcopacy  have  been 
presented  with  a  degree  of  confidence  which  has 
never  been  evinced  by  the  much  more  numerous 
denominations  of  Baptists,  Methodists,  and  Presby- 
terians. 

General  reasons  for  examining  Episcopacy  at  the 

present  time. 

There  are  important  reasons  for  examining  these 
claims,  and  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  blame  can  be 


10 

attached  to  what  has  hitherto  been  conceded  to  be 
proper,  and,  indeed,  what  has  been,  in  some  de- 
gree at  least,  courted  by  EpiscopaUans  themselves. 
Among  the  reasons  which  seemed  to  me  to  make  it 
particularly  proper  to  examine  their  claims  at  the 
present  time,  were  such  as  the  following : — 

(1.)  The  general  attitude  which  the  Episcopal 
church  has  been  understood  to  assume  in  reference 
to  other  denominations  of  Christians.  With  a  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  Episcopal  church,  embracing 
all  who  are  generally  known  as  '•  high  churchmen,' 
it  has  been  understood  that  they  do  not  recognize 
any  other  churches  than  those  which  are  Prelatical ; 
and  that  they  do  not  regard  any  as  in  any  proper 
sense  ministers  of  the  gospel,  except  those  who  have 
been  Episcopally  ordained.  On  their  part,  there 
has  been  the  utmost  frankness  in  their  statements. 
They  have  not,  in  general,  been  understood  as  de- 
nying that  others  may  possibly  be  saved  ;  but  they 
have  spoken  of  them  as  being  in  substantially  the 
same  condition,  in  regard  to  salvation,  as  those  who 
have  never  heard  of  the  name  of  the  Saviour.  As 
mere  specimens  of  this  claim,  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  Episcopalians  have  allowed  themselves  to 
speak  on  this  subject,  I  will  refer  to  the  language 
of  two  distinguished  ministers  of  that  church.  The 
first  is  Bishop  Hobart.  "  Where  the  gospel  is  pro- 
claimed, communion  with  the  church,  by  participa- 
tion of  its  ordinances,  at  the  hands  of  a  didj/ 
authorized  priesthood,  is  the  indispensable  condi- 
tion of  salvation.^'' — Companion  for  the  Altar,  p. 
302.  Bishop  Ravenscroft  says,  that  the  "  church, 
the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments,  are  as  distinctly 
and  truly  the  appointments  of  God,  for  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners,  as  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  and  that 


11 

it  is  only  as  these  are  united  in  the  profession  of 
religion,  can  the  hope,  thereby  given  to  a  man,  be 
worthy  of  the  name  of  assurance." — Doctrines  of 
the  Church  vindicated,  pp.  31,  32.  It  has  not  been 
uncommon  for  this  portion  of  the  Episcopal  church 
to  speak  of  others  as  "  left  to  the  uncovenanted 
mercies  of  God  ;"  to  deny  that  they  have  a  valid 
ministry  and  valid  sacraments,  and  to  refuse  to 
recognize  others  as  in  any  proper  sense  churches 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Hence,  they  uniformly  re-or- 
dain, if  one  goes  over  to  them  from  another  Protes- 
tant denomination,  and  though  they  do  not  always 
re-baptise,  it  is  not  because  they  regard  others  as 
authorized  ministers  of  the  gospel,  but  because  they 
admit  the  validity  of  lay  baptism,  in  all  the  high 
church  movements  in  this  country,  there  never  has 
been  an  act  performed  by  them,  it  is  believed,  or 
an  expression  of  an  opinion  from  any  one  of  their 
distinguished  writers,  by  which  there  has  been  a 
recognition  of  any  other  church,  or  by  which  others 
are  regarded  as  in  any  sense  whatever,  true 
churches  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  No  one  can  fail  to 
admire  the  consistency  and  steadfastness  with 
which  these  views  have  been  held,  whatever  may 
be  thought  of  the  church  within  whose  bosom  they 
are  found.  Whether  these  views  are  to  be  regarded 
or  not  as  of  the  nature  of  an  "  attack''''  on  other 
denominations,  or  whether  they  are  mere  defe?ice, 
and  have  nothing  aggressive,  is  a  question  on  which 
it  is  probable  different  persons  would  have  quite  dif- 
ferent opinions.  It  may  not  be  of  the  nature  of  an 
attack  on  a  man  to  say  that  he  has  no  claims  to  the 
rights  of  a  citizen  ;  that  his  title-deeds  to  his  prop- 
erty are  worthless  ;  that  his  marriage  is  void,  and 
that  his  children  are  illegitimate.     If  such  asser- 


12 

tions,  however,  are  made,  most  plain  persons  would 
consider  that  if  they  examined  these  charges,  they 
were  not  making  an  attack,  but  stood  merely  upon 
a  defence.  Now  whatever  feelings  other  denomi- 
nations might  have  in  regard  to  this  claim,  whether 
of  sorrow,  indignation,  or  contempt,  there  was  no 
ground  of  complaint  in  regard  to  the  frankness  and 
clearness  with  which  the  opinion  was  avowed. 
That  matter  was  settled,  and  high  church  Episco- 
palians and  other  denominations  of  Christians  per- 
fectly understood  each  other  on  the  point.  Episco- 
pacy is  now  making  a  new  struggle.  Under  the 
better  auspices  of  the  low  church  party,  it  appears 
in  a  new  phase.  It  is  putting  forth  new  efforts, 
and  in  a  new  direction.  It  seems  to  be  attempting 
to  adapt  itself  to  the  large  and  liberal  spirit  of  the 
age,  and  to  be  disposed  to  fall  in  with  the  evangeli- 
cal efforts  which  have  been  originated  in,  and 
which  characterise  other  denominations.  It  was 
not  an  unnatural  desire  to  know  what  modification 
Episcopacy  is  susceptible  of  undergoing  while  still 
retaining  its  essential  features  ;  and  it  was  not  un- 
natural or  improper  to  ask,  whether  it  could  be  so 
moulded  as  to  recognize  other  ministers,  and  to  fall 
into  the  great  family  of  churches,  as  on  a  level  with 
others ;  and  it  was  not  unnatural  or  improper  to 
ask  of  the  leading  advocates  of  the  new  efforts,  what 
are  their  views  and  aims  in  reference  to  this  matter. 
(2.)  A  second  I'eason  for  examining  the  subject, 
is,  that  the  recent  developements  in  the  Episcopal 
church,  have  forced  the  enquiry  on  the  commu- 
nity. It  is  impossible  for  even  "  a  looker  on  in 
V^enice"  to  close  his  eyes  on  the  facts  in  regard  to 
those  developements.  The  things  which  are  com- 
ing to  pass  in  the  Episcopal  church  in  these  days 


13 

"  are  not  done  in  a  corner ;"  and  they  are  such  that 
other  denominations  besides  the  one  more  immedi- 
ately interested,  cannot  but  feel  an  interest  in  the 
result.  The  subject  pertains  to  our  common  Chris- 
tianity. Not  only  have  the  growing  dissensions 
and  strifes  of  that  denomination  been  such  as  to 
show  that,  with  all  the  boasted  proclamations  of 
"  unity,"  there  is  no  essential  harmony,  no  oneness 
whatever  in  the  Episcopal  sect ;  that  there  exists 
there  all  the  elements,  if  not  the  form,  of  schism  ; 
that  there  is  in  fact  a  more  vital  and  essential  vari- 
ance than  there  is  between  any  two  Protestant 
denominations  ;  that  the  tree  is  split  at  the  centre, 
though  the  bark  has  not  yet  opened,  or  the  sundered 
parts  gone  off  from  each  other ;  but  there  have  been 
developements  in  one  of  the  parties — and  that  by 
far  the  largest  in  this  country — which  have  alarmed 
the  Christian  world.  It  is  impossible  but  that  other 
Christians  should  know  this.  It  cannot  be  wrong 
to  know  it.  It  is  not  the  spirit  of  intermeddling  to 
feel  an  interest  in  it.  And  it  cannot  be  improper 
for  any  one,  either  within  or  without  the  Episcopal 
church,  to  inquire  whether  these  developements  are 
in  accordance  with  the  essential  tendency  of  the 
system,  and  to  express  his  convictions  to  the  world. 
One  of  the  fair  ways  of  judging  of  a  system  always 
is,  by  its  developements.  "  The  tree  is  known  by 
its  fruits." 

(3.)  A  third  reason  for  this  examination  is,  that  the 
character,  aims,  and  zeal  of  the  party  which  is  op- 
posed to  the  Oxford  developements,  are  such  as  in 
themselves  tend  strongly  to  secure  the  sympathy  of 
all  evangelical  christians.  That  party  is  known 
not  to  be  numerous,  and  it  has  been  supposed 
that    they   constitute    but    a    feeble    minority   in 

2 


14 

the  Episcopal  church.  Yet  their  general  aims  are 
distinct  and  detinite.  They  accord  with  the  evan- 
gelical denominations  of  christians  in  their  main 
efforts.  They  are  the  friends  of  spiritual  religion  ; 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  new  birth,  and  of  justification 
by  faith ;  of  Revivals,  Sabbath  schools,  and  of 
Prayer  meetings  ;  and  they  have  manifested  to  some 
extent,  a  warm  sympathy  with  those  who  are  en- 
deavouring to  distribute  the  word  of  life  around  the 
world.  With  these  aims  others  warmly  sympa- 
thize. Yet  as  a  great  question  pertaining  to  our 
common  Christianity,  it  could  not  but  occur  to  in- 
quire, whether  these  aims  are  in  accordance  with 
what  has  been  for  ages  understood  to  be  Episco- 
pacy, and  with  Episcopacy  as  it  is  found  in  their 
own  standards.  It  is  a  question  in  which  others 
have  a  deep  interest,  and  which  from  any  thing  that 
has  yet  appeared,  others  have  a  right  to  examine, 
whether  these  aims  are  practicable  ;  whether  others 
should  be  encouraged,  as  they  have  been  in  times 
past,  to  throw  in  their  influence  with  that  party, 
and  whether  the  Episcopal  church  is  destined  to 
take  its  place  with  the  Evangelical  denominations 
of  the  christian  world,  wholly  imbued,  as  the  low 
churchman  wishes,  with  the  spirit  of  evangelism. 
From  any  thing  that  appears,  other  christians  have 
a  right  to  ask  whether  the  whole  frame-work  of 
Episcopacy,  and  its  whole  spirit,  be  not  against 
them.  At  all  events,  whether  these  enquiries  are 
propounded  to  the  public  or  not,  they  are  passing 
through  the  minds  of  thousands  who  love  Zion,  and 
who  are  ready  to  hail  any  feasible  effort  for  the 
advancement  of  Evangelical  religion. 

(4.)  There  is  another  reason  for  the  examination 
of  Episcopacy  in  every  phase  in  which  it  may  ap- 


15 

pear.  It  is  because  the  influence  of  Episcopacy  in ' 
the  church  has  been  at  no  time  either  negative  or 
unimportant.  Taking  the  christian  church  at 
large,  it  has  done  more  to  make  it  what  it  is  at  this 
day,  than  any  other  cause  whatever.  Episcopa- 
lians believe  that  the  influence  has  been  good ; 
others  doubt  it,  and  at  all  events  the  results  are 
before  the  world.  It  is  the  boast  of  Episcopalians, 
and  is  one  of  their  favourite  arguments  for  the  di- 
vine origin  of  Prelacy,  that  the  forms  of  their 
religion  spread  over  about  nineteen  twentieths  of 
the  christian  world,  and  that  for  centuries  almost 
the  whole  church  reposed  under  its  umbrageous 
shadow.  It  prevailed  in  the  time  of  Constantine — 
whatever  may  be  said  of  the  ages  before  him.  The 
whole  Papal  world  has  been  Episcopal  '  without 
shadow  of  turning'  throughout  its  entire  history. 
The  Greek  church  has  always  been  Prelatical  in 
its  form.  The  Armenian,  the  Nestorian,  and  the 
Coptic  churches  are  wholly  Episcopal  in  their 
structure.  Episcopacy  has  showed  its  features  in 
every  clime,  and  among  every  people.  It  has  been 
seen  in  the  place  where  our  Lord  was  crucified  ; 
on  the  mount  where  he  was  transfigured,  and  the 
mount  from  whence  he  ascended  to  heaven  ;  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Lebanon  and  Olympus ;  in 
classic  Greece,  and  in  the  eastern  and  western 
capitals  of  the  Roman  v/orld  ;  in  Egypt,  and  all 
northern  Africa  ;  in  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  France, 
Germany  and  England ;  amidst  the  snows  of 
Scandinavia,  and  in  the  burning  regions  of  the 
tropics  :  it  has  been  seen  in  Ireland,  South  America, 
Mexico,  Lower  Canada  and  Cuba ;  and  having  de- 
veloped its  nature  in  all  these  places  and  coun- 
tries, it  is  now  developing  itself  amidst  the  free  insti- 


16 

tutions  of  America.  It  is  right  to  enquire  what  was  its 
influence  on  Europe  and  Asia,  during  the  dark  ages  ; 
it  is  right  to  enquire  what  has  been  and  is  its  influ- 
ence in  Syria,  Greece,  Egypt,  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal, 
Russia,  France,  Ireland,  Brazil,  Mexico,  Cuba  and 
Lower  Canada ;  and  it  is  right  to  ask,  judging 
from  the  past  and  the  present,  what  ivill  be  its  in- 
fluence in  the  United  States.  Of  nothing  in  this 
world  has  there  been  a  fairer  experiment  made 
than  of  the  influence  of  Episcopacy,  and  nothing 
caji  be  a  fairer  subject  of  investigation.  It  appears 
here,  indubitably  in  its  best  form.  It  seeks  to 
catch  the  spirit  of  this  age.  It  would  even  ally 
itself  with  the  once  rejected  spirit  of  Puritanism,  It 
becomes  the  warm  friend  of  Evangelical  religion, 
of  Revivals,  and  Missions,  and  of  efforts  to  train 
the  young  in  sabbath  schools.  It  is  7'ight  to  enquire 
what  is  the  prospect  of  success  in  the  new  phase  in 
which  it  appears.  It  is  right  to  ask  of  history 
what  it  has  'been ;  to  look  into  the  Prayer  Book 
and  to  see  what  it  is  there  ;  to  contemplate  the  lu- 
cubrations of  the  Oxford  divines,  and  to  ask  whether 
they  are  wholly  mistaken  in  their  understanding  of 
what  Episcopacy  is ;  and  to  ask  whether  the  Evan- 
gelical party  are  or  are  not  engaged  in  an  imprac- 
ticable undertaking,  when  they  seek  to  blend  Evan- 
gelical religion  with  the  Religion  of  Forms.  It  is 
time  to  examine  the  essential  nature  of  the  system, 
and  it  is  proper  to  do  it,  even  though  the  examina- 
tion should  lead  us  to  doubt  the  infallibility  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  and  the  wisdom  of  the  Parliament  of 
1548,  which  enacted  that  it  had  been  composed  by 

THE  AID  OF  THE  HoLY  GhOST.* 

*  Wheatly  on  Common  Prayer,  p.  28. 


17 

Particular  reasons  for  inquiring  into  the  position 
OF  the  Evangelical  party. 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons  for  an  exami- 
nation of  the  general  claims  and  purposes  of 
Episcopacy  at  the  present  time.  Some  of  the 
more  particular  reasons  for  inquiring  into  the 
"  position  of  the  Evangelical  Party''''  in  that 
church,  at  the  present  time,  are  these : — 

(1.)  The  claims  of  the  high  church  party,  so  far  as 
other  denominations  are  concerned,  have  not  been 
disavowed  by  them.  There  has  been  no  general  and 
open  remonstrance  against  those  claims,  and  no 
general  attempt  to  show  that  they  were  contrary  to 
the  genius  of  the  Episcopal  church.  There  has 
been  no  recognition  of  other  ministers  and  churches 
among  the  low  church  Episcopalians,  any  more 
than  there  has  been  by  their  high  church  brethren ; 
and  though  they  have  been  willing  to  co-operate  with 
them,  on  many  subjects,  yet  it  never  has  been  with 
them  as  with  ministers  and  churches.  In  other  denom- 
inations  of  Christians,  there  is  a  mutual  recognition. 
No  one  ever  doubts  what  are  the  views  of  Baptists, 
Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Dutch  Reformed,  Ger- 
man Reformed,  Lutherans,  and  Moravians,  in  re- 
gard to  each  other.  There  is  no  concealment. 
There  is  no  withholding  of  mutual  recognition.  The 
pulpits  of  the  one  denomination  are  never  closed 
against  the  other  ;  and  the  community  understand 
that  they  regard  others  as  on  the  same  level  with 
themselves.  But  neither  from  high  or  low  church 
Episcopalians  is  there  any  such  general  recognition, 
and  if  occasionally  an  individual  of  the  low  church 
party  has  expressed  a  belief  of  the  validity  of  the 
ordination  of  other  ministers,  it  has  been  understood 
to  be  an  exception  to  the  general  faith  of  his  party ; 
2* 


18 

and  even    he  has    felt    himself  restrained   by  his 
"canons,"  from  any  act  of  public  recognition. 

(2.)  The  low  church  party  are  in  the  habit  of 
i*e-baptising  the  members  received  from  other 
churches.  I  do  not  say  that  this  is  always  done  ; 
but  if  I  am  correctly  informed,  it  is  more  frequently 
done  than  it  is  by  their  high  church  brethren.*  It 
is  not  indeed  always  done ;  but  where  it  is  not 
done,  the  alleged  reason  why  it  is  not,  is  of  a  na- 
ture more  fitted  to  give  offence  to  other  denomina- 
tions of  christians,  than  if  it  were  done.  It  is  not 
omitted  because  they  consider  that  other  ministers 
have  had  a  valid  ordination,  and  have  a  right  to 
administer  the  sacraments,  but  because  they  admit 
the  validity  of  lay  baptism,  and  recognize  such 
a  baptism  just  as  they  would  that  administered 
by  one  who  made  no  pretensions  to  the  ministerial 
character.  This  is  the  ground  distinctly  taken  in 
the  late  letters  of  Bishop  Hopkins,  of  Vermont,  who 
is  understood  to  act  with  the  low  church  party.  On 
this  subject  he  uses  the  following  language  :  "  The 
first  subject  which  I  shall  present  is  that  of  Lay 
Baptism,  inasmuch  as  the  novel  practice  of  re-bap- 
tizing those  who  have  received  baptism  at  the  hands 
of  our  non-episcopal  brethren,  is  openly  defended, 
and  is  on  the  increase.''''  p.  6.  Against  the  practice 
of  re-baptizing,  the  Bishop  then  strenuously  argues 
through  more  than  fifty  pages ;  and  the  ground 
of  his  opposition  to  the  practice  is  not,  that  non- 
episcopal  ministers  have  a  valid  ordination,  or  have 
a  right  to  administer  the  sacraments,  but  that  their 
baptism  is  to  be  recognized  because  lay  baptism  is 

*  This  statement  is  made  on  the  authority  of  an  Episco- 
pal clergyman. 


19 

valid.  Perhaps  a  more  signal  and  public  attempt 
to  show  the  invalidity  of  the  ordination  of  their  min- 
isters, or  one  which  is  more  adapted  to  give  offence  to 
non-episcopalians,  has  never  occurred  than  this. 
Nothing  could  be  so  much  fitted  to  give  pain  as  an 
extended  argument  of  this  kind,  in  which  there  is  no 
intimation  that  they  are  ordained,  or  that  they  are  min- 
isters of  the  g-ospel  in  any  sense  ;  but  that  what  they 
do  ill  baptism  should  be  recognized  by  Episcopa- 
lians, because  baptism  by  any  man,  or  even  woman,, 
(p.  48,)  is  to  be  recognized  by  them  ;  because  this 
can  be  shown  to  have  been  the  practice  of  the 
*'  P®.thers,"  the  Papists,  and  by  the  founders  of  the 
Episcopal  church  ;  because  m  the  time  of  Athana- 
«ius^  the  "  baptism  of  hoys  in  play^^  was  recognized 
(pp..  27,  28,)';  because  Augustine  held  that  those 
*'  who  were  separated  from  the  unity  of  the  church" 
might  baptise,  (p.  35)  ;  because  Pope  Leo  taught 
that  *'  the  baptism  of  heretics  must  iiot  be  repeated 
(p.  39) ;  and  because  the  venerable  Bede  taught 
that  "  Whether  a  heretic,  or  a  schismatic,  or  any 
wicked  tvretch  whatever,  baptises  in  the  confession 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  it  avails  not  that  he  who  is 
(\\\is  baptised  should  be  re-baptised  by  good  catho- 
lics ;  and  that  after  it  is  once  done,  it  can  by  no 
means  be  repeated,"  (p.  47.)  S-jch  is  the  reason- 
mg  on  which  this  lov/  church  Prelate  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  in  Protestant  America,  endeav- 
'ors  to  convince  Episcopalians  of  both  parties,  that 
they  ought  to  recognize  the  baptism  admioistered  by 
Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Baptists,  Metho- 
dists, and  the  Dutch  and  German  churches. 

llov/  far  such  language  and  such  a  recognition 
will  contribute  to  remove  the  feelmgs  with  which 
the  claims  of  the  high  cliurch   party  are  i-egarded 


20 

by  others,  may  admit  of  some  diversity  of  opinion. 
For  one,  the  frank  declaration  of  high  church- 
men, that  I  am  in  no  sense  to  be  regarded  as  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  is  far  more  grateful  to  my 
feelings  than  the  admission  that  baptism  adminis- 
tered by  me  is  valid,  because  I  am  a  layman. 

(3.)  The  same  thing  exists  in  regard  to  re-ordi- 
nation. The  low  church  party  declare  that  "  with- 
in the  last  thirty  years,  about  three  hundred  minis- 
ters of  other  denominations  have  entered  the  minis- 
try of  the  Episcopal  church."  See  the  Episcopal 
Recorder  of  January  27,  1844.  The  statistics  are 
not  furnished  on  which  this  statement  is  made,  and 
it  is  impossible  for  me  to  ascertain  from  what  de- 
nominations these  accessions  have  been  derived. 
It  may  be  presumed  that  a  small  portion  of  them  have 
come  from  the  Roman  Catholic  church  ;  a  few  haves 
gone  from  Presbyterians  ;  the  great  mass,  it  is  sup- 
posed, are  Methodists.  None  of  the  Catholics  have 
been  re-ordained  ;  all  the  rest  undoubtedly  have 
been.  No  one,  according  to  the  Prayer  Book, 
(Preface  to  the  Form  and  Manner  of  making,  or- 
daining, and  consecrating  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,)  can  be  admitted  to  the  clerical  office  irj 
the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country,  "  who  hath 
not  had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordination."  On 
the  supposition,  then,  that  fifty  of  the  converts  have 
been  from  the  Romanist  communion,  there  have 
been  exhibited  to  this  community,  within  the  timo 
specified,  two  hundred  and  fifty  distinct  cases  in 
which  there  has  been  a  public  refusal  to  recognize 
the  ministry  of  other  denominations..  Some  of 
those  who  have  been  thus  re-ordained,  are  now  in 
the  ranks  of  the  low  church  party  ;  having  submit- 
ted to  the  indignity  of  abjuring  their  ordination,  and 


21 

making  by  the  act  a  public  declaration  that  all  those 
from  whom  they  separated,  have  no  valid  title  to  the 
ministry.  Some  of  those  who  have  thus  re-ordain- 
ed others,  are  Prelates  who  are  identified  with  the 
low  church  party,  bringing  now  in  each  and  every 
case,  the  weight  of  their  private  character  and  offi- 
cial standing  to  proclaim  through  the  whole  extent 
of  their  dioceses,  and  throughout  the  land,  their  be- 
lief that  all  other  ordination  but  Episcopal  is  invalid. 
Meantime,  from  no  organ  of  the  low  church,  from 
no  pulpit,  and  from  no  press,  have  we  heard  the 
slightest  note  of  rebuke  or  dissent  from  these  pub- 
lic acts.  So  far  as  appears,  without  a  solitary 
exception,  they  have  acquiesced  in  acts  which  pro- 
claim that  the  Papacy  is  a  true  church,  and  that 
all  their  Protestant  brethren,  except  the  Moravians, 
are  without  a  valid  ministry.  It  may  be  assumed, 
therefore,  that  there  is  not  a  low  church  Prelate, 
Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  land,  wiio  would  recognize 
a  Presbyterian,  a  Baptist,  or  a  Methodist  ordination  ; 
and  that  there  is  not  a  low  church  minister  who  would 
feel  himself  called  upon  to  utter  a  note  of  remon- 
strance at  the  public  indignity  thus  shown  to  the  min- 
isters of  every  other  religious  denomination.  Wheth- 
er it  is  wi'ong  to  ask  our  Episcopal  brethren  of  the 
!o\v  church  on  what  principles  it  is  that  they  re- 
gard an  ordination  in  the  Papal  communion  as  en- 
titling to  higher  public  respect,  and  as  better  qualify- 
ing for  the  true  work  of  the  ministry,  than  ordina- 
tion in  the  Protestant  churches,  may  be  safely  left 
to  the  community  to  determine. 

(4.)  So  far  as  the  low  church  have  expressed 
themselves  on  the  points  at  issue  between  the  high 
church  and  other  Protestants,  they  have  identified 
themselves  with  the  former.     Thus  Bishop  McCos- 


22 

kry,  of  Michigan,  says,  "  It  is  only  through  this 
ministry  (that  is,  an  Episcopally  ordained  ministry) 
that  pardon  and  acceptance  with  God  can  be  made 
known."  "  The  apostles  held  the  only  ministry 
which  was  held  of  Christ.  Not  only  the  power  to 
rule  and  govern  the  church,  but  also  it  must  follow, 
to  continue  the  same  power.  If  not,  there  has 
never  been  any  authorized  ministry  in  the  church, 
and  all  who  profess  to  be  commissioned  as  ambas- 
sadors of  Christ,  are  gross  impostors."  Sermon, 
Feb.  19,  1842. 

Bishop  Hopkins,  also,  while  he  reasons,  in  no 
very  conclusive  manner,  that  the  name  '  church' 
has  been  given,  and  should  be  given,  by  Episcopa- 
Hans  to  other  denominations,  yet  maintains  that 
they  have  "  lost  the  apostolic  order  of  the  ministry  /" 
that  is,  if  words  have  a  natural  signification,  they 
are  without  any  regular  and  authorized  ministry. 
"Those  portions  of  Christendom,"  says  he,  "  which 
retain  the  fundamental  verities  of  the  christian 
faith,  are  entitled,  for  the  faith's  sake,  to  be  called 
churches,  AiiTHouGH  they  have  lost  the  apostolic 
ORDER  OF  THE  MINISTRY."  "  I  bcg  Icavc,"  says  he, 
"  to  be  understood  as  distinctly  maintaining  that  the 
institution  of  the  Episcopal  church  government  is 
DIVINE,  because  apostolic."  "  The  completeness  or 
perfection  of  the  church,  requires  both  the  apostolic 
doctrine  and  government.  The  faith  of  the  church, 
and  the  ministry  of  the  church  should  doubtless  go 
together.  The  first  is  the  jewel ;  the  second  is  the 
casket.  But  the  loss  of  the  one  does  not  necessarily 
involve  the  loss  of  the  other  ;  even  as  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  body  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  de- 
struction of  the  soul."  The  Novelties  which  dis- 
turb our  peace.  Letter  2  pp.  8 — 9.     So  also  oa 


23 

pp,  51,  52,  Bishop  Hopkins  holds  the  following 
language.  "  Every  consistent  churchman  is 
OBLIGED  to  deny  that  the  ministry  of  non-episcopal 
churches  is  a  regular  apostolic  ministry.  For  we 
all,  with  a  very  few  exceptions,  maintain  the  apos- 
tolic and  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy  ;  we  all 
maintain  that  the  work  of  ordination  belongs  of 
right,  to  none  but  Bishops,  who  as  ordainers,  and 
governors  in  chief  over  the  church,  were  appointed 
to  succeed  the  apostles.  It  results,  of  course,  that 
ive  cannot  regard  the  non-episcopal  ministry  as  men 
regularly  ordained,  but  rather  as  laymen,  exerci- 
sing ministerial  functions  according  to  a  ride  of 
human,  instead  of  divine  ;  of  modern,  instead  of 
apostolic  institution.  Hence  their  baptisms  arc  lay 
baptisms.  They  are  also  liable  to  the  charge  of 
schism,  and  some  are  not  fi-ec  from  the  more  griev- 
ous infection  of  heresy." 

Scarcely  any  work  of  these  times  has  been  more 
heartily  commended  by  the  Episcopal  Recorder 
than  this  of  Bishop  Hopkins.  How  far  it  is  satis- 
factory to  others  to  have  their  baptism  regarded  as 
valid  because  that  of  laymen  is  valid,  and  to  be 
told  that  "  they  have  lost  the  apostolic  ministry," 
and  that  they  have  "  the  jewel,  but  that  the  casket 
is  gone,"  and  that  they  are  to  be  recognized  as 
churches  in  the  same  sense  that  a  soul  v>dthout  a  bo- 
dy is  to  be  regarded  as  a  man,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
imagine.  How,  with  these  views,  other  denomina- 
tions can  be  recognized  as  churches,  is  a  problem 
of  somewhat  diihcult  solution.  At  all  events,  since 
other  churches  are  thus  disowned  by  the  low  churcii 
party  as  well  as  the  high  ;  since  the  views  thus  ex- 
pressed are  endorsed  or  sanctioned  by  every  public 
and  official  act ;  and  since  when  Uiere  is  any  ap- 


24 

pearance  of  recognition  it  is  done  in  a  manner  so 
little  satisfactory  to  others,  and  in  a  way  so  inevi- 
tably leading  to  the  impression  that  an  essential 
thing  is  wanting  in  all  non-episcopal  churches,  it 
cannot  be  deemed  improper  to  examine  the  nature 
of  these  claims. 

(5.)  One  other  thing  has  been  apparent  also 
among  low  churchmen.  They  have  evinced  great 
and  commendable  zeal  against  the  views  of  the  Ox- 
ford writers,  and  the  aims  of  the  high  church  party. 
But  on  the  signal  injustice  pubhcly  done  to  a  large 
portion  of  the  Protestant  world,  in  denying  that 
they  have  a  valid  ministry  and  valid  ordinances, 
we  have  heard  from  them  no  note  of  remonstrance. 
At  these  extraordinary  claims,  they  express  no 
grief.  When  a  Papist  is  admitted  to  their  ministry 
without  being  re-ordained,  and  a  Presbyterian  or 
Methodist  neophyte  is  on  the  same  day  ordained  as 
a  deacon,  after  having  exercised  the  office  of  the  min- 
istry for  years,  there  is  no  expression  of  disapproba- 
tion. Is  it  of  the  nature  of  an  "  attack  ;"  is  it  "  perse- 
cution" in  these  circumstances  to  examine  the  subject 
of  Episcopacy  as  it  is  actually  before  the  public,  even 
in  its  best  form '?  Are  other  denominations  to  be  re- 
garded as  aggressors  when  they  kindly  but  firmly 
lift  up  the  voice  of  remonstrance  against  the  posi- 
tion which  their  professedly  Protestant  brethren 
choose  to  take  against  them  ]  It  may  be  a  mere 
logomachy  to  endeavour  to  ascertain  from  what 
quarter  the  "  attack"  really  comes,  and  it  may  be 
safely  left  to  the  public  to  determine.  Whether  to 
hold  up  all  other  ministers  of  the  gospel  as  "  impos- 
tors ;"  to  re-baptise  those  who  are  proselytes  from 
other  denominations,  or  to  maintain  that  they  are  not 
to  be  re-baptised  because  the  baptism  of  "  laymen," 


25 

and  "  women,"  and  "  boys,"  and  "  heretics,"  or  any 
"  wicked  wretch  whatever"  is  valid  ;  to  re-ordain  all 
ministers  from  other  denominations  except  Papists  ; 
to  affirm  that  the  ministers  of  other  denominations 
are  all  laymen,  exercising  their  functions  "  accord- 
ing to  a  human  instead  of  a  divine  institution,"  be 
or  be  not  of  the  nature  of  an  "  attack,"  may  not  be 
a  matter  worth  contending  about.  The  thing  itself 
has  an  importance  which  demands  investigation, 
whoever  is  the  agressor. 

It  is  for  such  reasons  that  I  do  not  deem  it  im- 
proper, to  submit  to  the  public  my  views  of  the  aims 
and  efforts  of  the  Evangelical  party  in  the  Episco- 
pal church.  It  has  been  said  that  I  have  made  an 
unprovoked  attack  on  another  denomination.  This 
was  to  be  expected,  and  though  the  examination 
was  conducted  in  the  mildest  and  kindest  manner 
possible,  it  was  probably  not  practicable  to  avoid 
this  charge.  The  charge  seems  to  have  been  made 
because  our  Episcopal  brethren  do  not  appreciate 
the  feelings  of  the  religious  community  around 
them,  and  because  there  is  a  diffierence  of  view  be- 
tween us  as  to  what  constitutes  attack  and  defence. 

But  in  reply  to  this  charge  of  making  an  "  attack," 
and  to  all  that  is  said  of  "  persecution"  by  Episco- 
palians, at  present,  I  would  make  two  other  re- 
marks. One  is,  that  it  is  of  the  nature  of  Protest- 
antism to  consider  it  right  to  examine  with  the  ut- 
most freedom,  every  thing  which  comes  before  the 
community  affecting  our  common  Christianity. 
The  church  is  one.  The  interests  of  truth  pertain 
to  all,  and  any  thing  in  the  bosom  of  the  christian 
church,  any  where,  which  affects  the  common 
cause  ;  any  developements  of  Christianity  ;  or  any 
doctrines  put  forth,  we  rej^ard  as  a  fair  subject  of 
^3 


26 

investigation.  Presbyterians  do  not  think  that  they 
have  a  right  to  complain  if  their  church  poh'ty 
and  order,  or  if  their  doctrinal  articles  of  religion 
are  examined  freely  ;  nor  do  Baptists  construe  it  as 
an  "  attack"  or  as  "  persecution"  if  we  attempt  to 
show  the  propriety  of  household  baptism,  or  that 
their  views  of  "  close  communion"  are  not  in  accor- 
dance with  the  New  Testament ;  nor  are  Meth- 
odists accustomed  to  complain  if  there  is  a  free  en- 
quiry into  the  polity  of  their  own  church.  In  the 
Presbyterian  church,  it  has  never  been  considered 
impertinent,  intrusive,  or  improper  in  any  sense,  for 
other  denominations  to  examine  their  general 
'  position,'  or  the  '  position'  of  any  party  in  that 
church,  with  the  utmost  freedom.  During  the  late 
contentions  in  that  church,  the  aims,  and  purposes, 
and  theology  of  what  has  been  called  "  the  new 
school  party,"  were  examined  at  great  length  in  a 
series  of  articles  first  published  in  the  Christian 
Advocate  and  Journal,  the  leading  paper  of  the 
Methodist  denomination ;  and  subsequently  collect- 
ed and  published  in  a  volume  entitled  "  An  exami- 
nation of  the  System  of  Nev/  Divinity,  or  New 
School  Theology,"  in  1839.  No  Presbyterian  of 
either  party,  as  far  as  I  know,  either  then  or  since, 
has  made  complaint  of  this  as  an  "  attack,"  as  "  in- 
termeddling," or  as  "  persecution."  We  published, 
our  views  to  the  wide  world.  We  invited  the  world 
to  examine  them  as  freely  and  as  long  as  they 
pleased.  Believing  that  they  were  true,  we  were 
desirous  that  they  should  be  looked  at.  If  offence 
were  to  be  taken  because  such  an  examination  was 
made,  it  would  be  very  easy  to  show  that  that  book 
contained  much  more  that  was  adapted  to  give  of- 
fence, than  anything  in  my  little  pamphlet  on  Epis- 


27 

copacy.  It  is  quite  difficult  to  see  wliat  -there  is  in 
the  Episcopal  church  which  renders  a  similar  ex- 
amination improper,  or  why  that  which  has  been 
regarded  as  proper  elsewhere,  should  be  construed 
as  an  "  attack,"  or  as  "  persecution"  there.  It  is 
difficult  to  see  that  there  is  any  church  that  can 
claim  an  exception  from  this  right  to  a  free  exami- 
nation of  its  views — and  least  of  all  one  which 
claims  to  be  the  only  true  church  now  existing  on 
the  earth.  It  is  very  certain  that  Episcopalians 
have  not  usually  been  particularly  restrained  from 
expressing  their  views,  by  any  very  delicate  scru- 
ples about  the  right  of  enquiring  into  the  polity  of 
other  chi^rches,  and  their  claims  to  an  equality 
with  themselves. 

But  there  was  another  reason  which  led  to  the 
statement  of  the  thoughts  suggested  in  the  Tract  on 
"  the  position  of  the  evangelical  party  in  the  Epis- 
copal church."  I  v/rote  the  article,  indeed,  at  the 
suggestion  of  no  one,  and  published  it  without  sub- 
mitting it  to  any  others  ;  but  the  thoughts  there  ex- 
pressed are  by  no  means  confined  to  the  individual 
who  v/rote  the  Tract.  They  are  inquiries  in  which 
the  religious  community  at  large  is  interested. 
Other  churches  are  by  no  means  uninterested  spec- 
tators of  the  "  position"  which  the  Evangelical 
party  now  occupies,  or  of  their  aims  and  purposes. 
While  all  their  sympathies,  as  the  friends  of  reli- 
gion, are  with  the  Evangelical  party,  they  think 
they  see  that  those  objects  can  never  be  secured  in 
connection  with  the  Episcopal  church,  but  that  the 
whole  history  of  Prelacy  has  been  at  variance  with 
these  efforts.  They  suppose  that  if  those  objects 
are  to  be  secured,  it  must  be  by  a  freer  organization, 
aiid  that  the  Prayer  Book,  in  its  present  form  at 


28 

least,  is  an  insuperable  barrier  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  their  purposes.  We  do  not  wish  to  inter- 
fere with  their  internal  organization  ;  to  attempt  to 
decide  the  questions  which  have  sprung  up  among 
themselves  ;  to  throw  any  influence  in  favour  of 
one  party  or  the  other ;  to  give  increased  rancour 
to  the  strife  which  has  already  so  effectually  de- 
stroyed all  appearance  of  the  once  boasted  "  unity'* 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  and  which  make  it  doubt- 
ful whether  an  allusion  to  that  "  unity"  now  is 
designed  to  be  serious  or  ironical ;  or  to  exasperate 
one  of  the  parties  against  the  other.  We  do  not 
suppose  that  we  have  a  right  to  intermeddle  with 
an  internal  and  domestic  warfare,  but  we  have  a 
right  to  inquire  what  Episcopacy  has  been  in  its 
whole  history  from  the  days  of  Constantino ;  what 
has  been  its  influence  in  the  ages  in  which  it  has 
engrossed  all  of  Christianity  to  itself^  and  what  it  is 
in  its  best  form — ^the  form  in  which  it  is  held  by  the 
Evangelical  party  in  that  church.  We  are  not 
enemies  who  wish  to  thwart  their  plans  ;  we  are  not 
foreigners  who  have  come  in  to  disturb  the  peace  of 
a  neighbour  ;  we  are  brethren  who  have  a  right  to 
discuss  the  general  aims  and  plans  of  our  Christian 
brethren,  so  far  as  they  choose  to  put  them  forth 
before  the  world  ;  and  it  will  not  be  practicable  for 
the  Episcopal  church  to  make  any  "  capital"  out 
of  the  assertion  that  they  are  a  "  persecuted"  peo- 
ple. The  community  is  often  credulous,  but  this 
is  probably  the  last  thing  which  it  will  be  disposed 
to  believe. 
The  manner  in  which  it  was  to  be  presumed  the 

Inquiry  would  be  met. 

It  was  natural  to  have  anticipated  that  if  the  ex- 
amination of  Episcopacy  were  conducted  in  a  kind 


29 

manner,  it  would  be  met  with  a  kind  spirit.  If  in 
any  denomination  of  christians  there  are  what  ap- 
pears to  otliers  to  be  difficulties  of  a  serious  charac- 
ter, it  was  natural  to  suppose  that  they  would  be 
candidly  explained  ;  if  objections  are  made  to  doc- 
trines or  practices  in  any  Christian  church,  there  is 
an  obvious  propriety  that  there  should  be  the  spirit 
of  kindness  in  the  manner  in  which  those  objections 
are  removed.  Nothing  is  gained  in  christian  con- 
troversy by  harsh  words ;  by  epithets  which  tend 
only  to  wound  the  feelings  ;  by  personal  allusions, 
or  by  an  imputation  of  bad  motives.  Conscious 
truth  will  seldom  be  provoked  to  such  acts  of  con- 
troversy, and  the  sincere  lover  of  truth  will  learn  to 
check  and  restrain  all  such  ebullitions.  I  had  no 
personal  allusion  or  reference  in  penning  the  Tract 
on  the  position  of  the  Evangelical  party.  I  made 
mention  of  no  npaip.e  but  in  the  kindest  manner.  I 
used  no  uncourteous  words  in  regard  to  th*^  party  ;  I 
cast  no  reflection  on  their  motives.  It  was  reason- 
able to  suppose  that.  Vv'hatever  examination  might  be 
made  of  the  Tract,  it  would  be  done  in  a  kind  spirit, 
and  with  a  corresponding  freedom  from  personality. 
There  was  a  way  in  which  the  argument  in  that  Tract 
might  have  been  so  met  as  to  have  maintained  the 
feelings  of  brotherhood  unimpaired  ;  and  it  was  pos- 
sible for  the  Evangelical  party  in  the  Episcopal  church 
to  have  secured  the  cordial  sympathy  of  the  whole 
Christian  community  in  their  struggles  against  their 
high  church  brethren.  All  that  was  needed  in  the 
case  was  one  of  these  things  : — to  show  to  the  sat- 
i-sfaetion  of  the  community,  that  the  spirit  of  Evan- 
gelism is  not  inconsistent  with  Episcopacy,  and  may 
live  and  flourish  there  ;  to  explain  how  it  has  been 
th^t  this  never  has  occurred,  and  what  new  hopes 
3 


30 

they  have  of  success  when  all  efforts  have  hereto- 
fore failed ;  and  if  such  be  their  belief,  to  recognise 
cordially  other  ministers  and  churches  as  true  por- 
tions of  the  church  of  Christ.  Or  if,  pressed  by  the 
difficulties  of  their  condition,  and  despairing  of  suc- 
cess in  a  controversy  where  the  odds  are  so  much 
against  them,  they  should  frankly  acknowledge  that 
there  are  things  in  their  Liturgy  which  are  against 
the  spirit  of  this  age  ;  that  it  was  framed  in  a  time 
when  the  objects  which  they  now  seek  were  not 
contemplated  by  the  church  ;  that  the  Prayer  Book 
might  be  modified  to  advantage,  and  should  they 
imitate  the  Reformers,  and  the  noble  example  of  the 
Free  Church  of  Scotland,  they  would  be  certain  to 
carry  the  sympathy  of  the  community  with  them. 
They  would  be  certain  also  to  be  a  more  flourishing- 
church  than  they  can  now  be.  Tbey  would  breathe 
the  air  of  freedom.  The  Evangelical  spirit  would 
no  longer  struggle  in  bonds.  They  would  secure 
all  those  in  the  community  who  have  any  affinities 
for  Episcopacy,  and  who  prefer  that  mode  of  wor- 
ship. The  high  church  party  would  make  few 
converts  from  other  denominations.  The  few  who 
might,  from  any  cause,  be  disposed  to  become  unit- 
ed with  them,  would  prefer  at  once  to  enter  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  communion.  Tendimus  in  Latium 
seems  to  be  the  appropriate  motto  of  that  party,  and 
it  would  be  easier  to  persuade  men  to  start  on  a 
journey  at  once  to  Rome,  than  to  persuade  them  to 
leave  their  homes  with  an  intention  to  end  their 
travels  at  any  place  without  the  walls  of  the  Eternal 
City.  Indeed  it  is  a  fact  about  which  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  that  the  converts  which  have  been  made 
of  late  years  to  the  Episcopal  church,  have  been 
principally  made  by  the  zeal  of  the  low  church 


f\ 


31 


party.  If  that  party  wished  to  secure  accessions 
still  from  other  denominations,  it  was  incumbent  on 
them  to  furnish  to  the  community  some  guarantee 
that  they  who  now  enter  the  Episcopal  church  will 
not  be  engaged  in  a  hopeless  warfare ;  will  not  be 
obliged  to  depart  from  the  whole  spirit  of  their 
rubric  and  canons,  and  will  not  be  in  danger  of 
being  overshadowed  and  crushed  by  Puseyism  or 
Romanism.* 

In  particular,  I  supposed  I  had  a  right  to  antici^ 
pate  that  the  argument  in  my  Tract  would  be  met 
in  a  kind  manner.  When,  ten  years  ago,  I  exam- 
ined, with  as  much  freedom  as  I  have  shown  in  this 
inquiry,  the  Tract  on  "  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scrip- 
ture," by  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Onderdonk,  the  argu- 
ment was  met  by  him  in  a  spirit  and  manner  wholly 
becoming  the  character  of  a  christian  and  a  gentle^ 
man.  There  was  not  an  unkind  word  uttered  ; 
there  was  no  imputation  of  an  improper  motive ; 
there  was  nothing  to  diminish  my  high  respect  for 
him ;  there  was  no  charge  of  misrepresentation,  or 
of  disregard  for  the  truth.  On  his  part,  the  argu- 
ment was  a  model  in  tone  and  spirit  of  what  an 
argument  conducted  by  a  christian  gentleman 
should  be  ;  and  I  meant,  on  my  part,  to  reciprocate 
his  kind  and  gentlemanly  treatment,  1  supposed 
then,  and  believe  still,  that  apart  from  the  bearing 
of  the  argument  on  truth,  good  was  done  by  show- 
ing on  both  sides,  what  has  been  so  rarely  seen  in 

*Seetheletter  of  Judge  Jay,  an  eminent  Episcopalian,  giv- 
ing reasons  for  declining  to  contribute  to  build  an  Episcopal 
church  in  Westchester  County,  New  York,  because  there  was 
reason  to  apprehend  that  it  might  yet  be  brought  wholly  un- 
der the  control  of  the  Puseyite  party  in  the  Episcopal  church. 
This  letter  was  recently  published  in  the  New  York  Com- 
mercial Advertiser. 


32 

debates  on  religion,  that  a  controversy  could  be 
conducted  without  in  the  least  embittering  the  feel- 
ings of  those  engaged  in  it,  or  diminishing  mutual 
respect. 

1  had  the  strongest  reasons  to  suppose  that  the 
result  would  be  the  same  in  the  examination  of 
another  important  question,  pertaining  to  Episco- 
pacy— the  position  of  the  Evangelical  party  in  that 
church.  Some  of  that  party  I  have  had  the  happi- 
ness to  reckon  among  my  personal  friends,  nor  has 
the  fact  of  their  preierence  for  Episcopacy  above 
what  I  have  regarded  as  a  better  faith,  made  any 
diminution  in  the  affection  which  I  have  had  for 
them,  nor  so  far  as  I  could  perceive,  in  their  re- 
spect for  me.  The  Rev.  John  A.  Clark,  D.  D., 
late  editor  of  the  Recorder,  was  a  personal  friend 
for  more  than  twenty  years,  and  all  my  intercourse 
with  the  present  editors  has  been  uniformly  of  the 
kindest  character.  Under  these  circumstances,  and 
not  liaving  any  other  reference  to  them  in  the  re- 
marks Vv'hich  I  ventured  to  publish  on  the  position 
of  the  party  with  which  they  are  identified  than  1 
had  to  all  others  of  that  party,  it  was  rational  to 
expect  ihat,  if  my  Tract  was  noticed  at  all,  it 
would  be  in  the  spirit  of  kindness  to  which  I  had 
been  accustomed,  and  which  I  had  endeavoured  my- 
self to  evince. 

THE  MANNER    IN  WHICH  THE   INQUIRY  HAS   BEEN  ACTUAL- 
LY MET. 

To  my  friends  and  theirs,  it  has  been  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  observe  the  method  which  the  editors 
have  thought  proper  to  adopt  in  their  reply.  The 
controversy,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  seems  to 
have  become  personal,  and  the  attention  is  diverted 


from  the  argument  to  the  man.  There  are  two  classes 
of  charges  or  epithets  which  they  have  seen  proper 
to  employ.  Of  the  former  class,  are  such  as  these  : 
"  Ignorance  and  misapprehension  ;"  "  misrepresen- 
tation of  facts  ;"  "  unjust  assaults  ;"  "  extreme  mis- 
representations ;"  "  hostile  spirit ;"  "  virulence  ;" 
"  rudeness  ;"  "  the  exceeding  injustice  and  misrep- 
resentation of  the  book  :"  "  indelicacy  and  want  of 
GOOD  BREEDING  ;"  «'  vcry  empty  assertions  ;"  an  "  un- 
provoked and  unnecessary  assault ;"  "  mis-state- 
ments." The  editors  speak  of  themselves  as  "  in- 
suited,^''  (that  is  by  this  publication,  and  by  the  man- 
ner in  which  it  is  received  in  the  community),  and 
shut  out  of  respectful  and  decorous  reception 
among  those  who  are  accustomed  to  meet  on  oc- 
casions when  christians  meet  for  the  purpose  of 
united  efforts  to  spread  the  gospel." 

The  other  charges  are  of  a  more  serious  char- 
acter. They  relate  not  to  a  deficiency  of  knowl- 
edge, or  to  a  necessity  of  instruction  in  the  rules  of 
etiquette,  but  to  the  heart.  They  pertain  to  the  moral 
and  religious  character,  and  embody  express  ac- 
cusations of  a  determined  and  wilful  disregard  of 
the  truth,  and  of  a  purpose  even  to  invent  and 
falsify  in  order  to  vilify  the  Episcopal  church. 
The  editors  speak  of  "  the  peculiar  exhibition 
which  he  has  made  of  ignorance  of  the  facts  in 
the  case,  and  unconcern  for  their  existence ;" 
they  say  that  "  Mr.  Barnes  could  not  revile  the 
Liturgy  of  the  church  adequately  without  voluntary 
misrepresentations ;"  that  "  these  two  sentences," 
(quoted  from  p.  34  of  the  Tract,")  contain  nothing 
less  than  two  deliberate  acts  of  injustice,  deliberately 
framed  for  the  mere  purpose  of  inventing  increased 
reproach ;"  that  "  Mr.    Barnes'  determination   for 


34 

the  result  he  desired  of  complete  vilification  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  would  not  have  allowed  him  this 
reference."  In  speaking  of  the  argument  which  I 
had  submitted  on  confirmation,  the  editors  indulge 
themselves  in  the  following  language  :  "  With  what 
honesty  then  can  Mr.  Barnes  occupy  eleven  pages 
of  his  book  in  the  deliberate  framing  of  a  contrary 
statement,  when  a  simple  reference  to  our  known 
laws  would  have  exhibited  to  him  the  truth  at  once." 
There  is  here  exhibited,  just  as  there  is  throughout 
the  whole  book,  the  determination  to  vilify  and  destroy 
not  the  party  avowedly  the  object,  but  the  church  to 
which  they  belong.  There  is  no  '  enquiry^  into 
facts,  from  one  end  of  the  publication  to  the  other, 
but  a  succession  of  unfounded  assertions,  and  im- 
putations  EQUALLY   DESTITUTE  OF  TRUTH   AND  PROOF." 

So  again  the  editors  say,  "  In- reply  to  such  perfect- 
ly unfounded  statements,  we  hardly  know  what  to 
say — the  charge  seems  so  voluntarily  untrue, 
from  a  man  who  professes  to  have  examined  the 
book." 

These  are  certainly  very  grave  charges  against 
a  minister  of  the  gospel,  and  should  not  have  been 
hastily  made.  The  community  will  not  expect  me 
to  reply  to  them.  I  may  be  "  ignorant,"  and  if  so, 
it  would  have  been  very  easy  to  show  me  wherein  ; 
I  may  have  "  misapprehended"  some  things,  and  it 
would  have  been  easy  to  have  shown  me  the  truth  ; 
but  to  "  misrepresent  voluntarily,  for  the  purpose 
of  vilifying  ;"  "  deliberately  to  frame  that  which  is 
designed  to  increase  reproach  ;"  to  "  have  no  con- 
cern for  the  existence  of  facts,"  and  to  make  state- 
ments which  even  seem  to  be  "  voluntarily  untrue," 
is  not  my  character  ;  nor  will  the  declaration  of  the 
Editors   of    the   Episcopal    Recorder   satisfy   this 


35 

community  that  it  is.  They  will  themselves  regret 
the  use  of  this  language  on  calm  reflection,  and  1 
shall  hasten  to  forget  it  as  soon  as  possible.  Such 
language  contributes  nothing  to  the  discovery  of 
truth,  or  to  the  value  of  an  argument.  I  put  these 
unhappy  expressions  on  record  here  not  for  the 
purpose  of  replying  to  them,  but  to  do  all  in  my 
power  to  prevent  their  use  hereafter.  They  shall 
not  be  remembered  by  me  in  the  argument,  or  in 
my  private  intercourse  with  Episcopalians.  The 
end  of  discussion  is  truth  ;  and  that  end  will  be  best 
reached  by  clear  argument,  kind  words,  and  cour- 
teous deportment.  The  atmosphere  in  which  truth 
resides  is  clear  and  serene,  in  a  region  elevated  far 
above  the  mists  of  prejudice  and  passion,  and  to  be 
reached  only  by  a  vigorous  effort  to  rise  above 
them.  "  No  pleasure,"  says  Lord  Bacon,  "  is 
comparable  to  the  standing  upon  the  vantage-ground 
of  truth  :  (a  hill  not  to  be  commanded,  and  where 
the  air  is  always  clear  and  serene  ;)  and  to  see  the 
errors,  and  wanderings,  and  mists,  and  tempests  in 
the  vale  below :  so  always  that  this  prospect  be 
with  pity,  and  not  with  swelling  or  pride."  I 
used  kind  words,  and  I  shall  continue  to  do  so. 
Hitherto  I  have  had  no  occasion  to  notice  anything 
else  among  those  with  whom  I  have  had  intercourse 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  and  I  shall  give  occasion 
for  no  other  in  anything  that  I  have  to  say.  So 
far  as  personal  intercourse  is  concerned  between 
me  and  Episcopalians,  everything  has  been  of  the 
kindest  character ;  and  so  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
nothing  shall  provoke  me  to  depart  from  what  I 
have  adopted  as  the  rule  of  my  life  in  my  inter- 
course with  all  classes  of  men.  Hitherto  I  have 
experienced  no  want  of  this  on  the  part  of  Episco- 


36 

palians.  As  a  minister,  I  have  had  no  reason  to 
complain  of  any  interference  from  them  with  me — 
of  any  effort  to  draw  away  my  people  from  my 
ministry,  or  in  any  manner  to  injure  my  reputation, 
or  to  embarrass  me  in  my  work.  I  have  never 
felt  the  slightest  hesitation  to  dismiss  any  one  of 
my  members  who  preferred  that  communion ;  nor 
have  I  supposed  they  have  had  any  reluctance  to 
dismiss  those  to  unite  with  my  church  who  have 
preferred  the  Presbyterian  mode  of  worship.  The 
interchange  of  members,  if  the  phrase  may  be  em- 
ployed, has  been  to  me  of  a  pleasant  character.  I 
have  honourable  testimonials  and  recommendations 
from  the  Episcopal  church,  in  my  possession ;  and 
in  the  passing  from  one  church  to  another,  there 
has  been  no  such  disparity  of  numbers  as  to  cause 
on  my  part  even  momentary  jealousy.  I  have 
always  supposed,  that  from  numerous  causes,  there 
are  those  in  a  community  who  would  prefer  the 
Episcopal  mode  of  worship  to  the  Presbyterian, 
and  who,  perhaps,  would  be  more  edified  in  such  a 
communion  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  I  have  sup- 
posed that  there  were  those  who  would  prefer  the 
Presbyterian  to  the  Episcopal,  the  Methodist,  or  the 
Baptist.  This  is  a  land  of  freedom.  Every  man 
has  a  right  to  select  his  mode  of  worship  ;  every 
minister  will  find  his  proper  level  in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  community  ;  every  one  who  is  worthy  of 
public  confidence  will  find  those  who  will  be  wil- 
ling to  sit  under  his  ministy ;  and  thus  far  in  life, 
I  for  one  at  least,  have  had  no  reason  to  complain 
that  the  public  have  not  shown  me  all  the  respect 
which  is  my  due. 

The  public  will   excuse  the  reference  to  these 
personal    matters.     They   would    not    have   been 


37 

troubled  with  it,  if  the  course  of  the  Recorder  had 
not  seemed  to  demand  it.  I  shall  make  no  further 
allusion  of  this  kind. 

Correction  of  a  Misapprehension. 

Before  proceeding  to  notice  the  main  subjects  of 
the  argument,  there  is  one  statement  in  my  Tract, 
in  itself  of  little  importance,  which,  having  been 
misapprehended,  I  could  wish  had  been  otherwise. 
It  occurs  on  p.  33,  and  is  introduced  by  the  Editors 
in  the  following  manner  : — 

"  But  could  not  Mr.  Barnes  revile  the  Liturgy  of 
the  Church  adequately,  icithout  voluntary  misrep- 
resentcdions  ? — p.  S3,  he  says, '  There  is  not  even 
permission  given  to  the  minister  to  select  and  read 
a  portion  of  Scripture  that  shall  have  any  relation 
to  the  subject  of  his  discourse.  If  his  text  should 
be  '  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only- 
begotten  Son,'  and  the  '  lesson'  for  that  day  should 
happen  to  he  that  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles 
which  commences  thus,  'Adam,  Sheth,  Enosh, 
Mahalaleel,  .Tared,  Henoch,  Methuselah,  Lamech,' 
all  that  the  minister  is  1o  do  is  to  say,  '  Here  begin- 
neth  such  a  chapter,'  and  read  on.'  " 

On  this  the  editors  are  pleased  to  make  the  fol- 
lowing remarks  : — 

"  Mr.  Barnes  knew,  for  he  professes  to  have  ac- 
curately examined  this  Prayer  Book,  that  no  such 
lesson  is  appointed  on  any  Sunday  or  week  day 
fhrovp;hoiit  the  lehole  year.  And  yet  he  can  allow 
himself  to  make  this  deliberately  false  insinuation, 
for  the  purpose  of  casting  an  invented  reproach  up- 
on a  book,  against  which  he  can  find  so  few  real 
objections.  The  glory  of  the  Prayer  Book,  is  the 
lionour  which  it  gives  to  the  word  of  God, — requir- 
4 


38 

ing  no  less  than  eight  distinct  portions  of  Holy- 
Scripture  to  be  read  on  every  Sabbath  and  other 
day  of  pubUc  worship,  selected  with  the  most  re- 
markable wisdom,  to  teach  continually  the  great 
doctrines  and  truths  of  the  Bible, — while  Presbyte- 
rian ministers,  in  many  instances,  read  nothing  of 
it,  and  Presbyterian  congregations  hear  nothing  of 
it,  but  the  single  text  which  has  been  selected  as 
the  subject  for  preaching, — and  in  no  instance,  is 
more  than  one  single  chapter  or  part  of  a  chapter 
read  during  any  occasion  of  their  public  worship. 
Which  body  will  be  found  to  have  paid  the  most 
honour  to  the  word  of  God,  this  with  other  facts 
may  help  to  decide." 

I  would  have  avoided  the  occasion  for  these  re- 
flections, if  I  had  supposed  that  such  a  construction 
would  have  been  put  on  what  I  said,  or  that  it  was 
possible.  But  such  an  idea  never  occurred  to  me. 
I  never  meant  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  the 
passage  from  Chronicles  was  among  the  "lessons" 
that  were  appointed  to  be  read,  nor  do  I  now  see 
that  it  is  the  fair  construction  of  what  I  said.  I  de- 
signed merely  to  show  that  the  minister  was  not  at 
liberty,  from  the  rules  of  the  Prayer  Book,  to  select 
the  portion  of  scripture  to  be  read  where  his  text 
occurred,  or  to  select  one  that  would  be  pertinent  to 
his  subject ;  and  all  that  I  wished  to  say  was,  that 
if  his  text  was  one  that  appertained  to  the  richest 
truths  of  the  gospel,  the  "  lesson"  that  was  to  be 
read  was  prescribed,  even  though  it  might  be  as 
remote  as  possible  from  the  subject  of  his  dis- 
course. I  regret  the  occasion  given  for  the  mis- 
construction of  the  passage  in  my  Tract  the  more, 
because  it  was  entirely  unnecessary  if  I  had  de- 
signed to  refer  to  a  "  lesson"  actually  appointed  to 


39 

be  read,  which  would  have  illustrated  the  point  be- 
fore me. 

There  are  numerous  parts  of  the  prescribed 
*'  lessons"  in  the  Prayer  Book,  which  would  have 
been  as  pertinent  to  my  purpose  as  the  chapter 
from  Chronicles,  and,  among  others,  the  follow- 
ing, which  is  appointed  to  be  read,  would  have 
answered  my  design  just  as  well — and  my  refer- 
ence may  be  thus  amended,  '  There  is  not  even 
permission  given  to  the  minister  to  select  and  read 
a  portion  of  Scripture  that  shall  have  any  relation 
to  the  subject  of  discourse.  If  his  text  should  be, 
*'  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,"  and  the  "  lesson"  for  that  day  should 
happen  to  be  that  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Nehe- 
miah  (x.)  which  commences  thus,  "  Now  those  that 
were  sealed  were,  Nchemiah  the  Tirshatha,  the  son 
of  Hachaliah,  and  Zidkijah,  Seraih,  Azariah,  Jer- 
emiah, Pashur,  Amariah,  Malchijah,  Hattush,  She- 
baniah,  Malluch,  Harim,  Meremoth,  Obadiah,"  all 
that  the  minister  is  to  do,  is  to  say  "  here  begin- 
neth  such  a  chapter,"  and  read  on. 

THE  FIRST  MAIN  POSITION  IN  THE  ARGUMENT. 

In  the  argument  which  I  maintained  in  the  Tract, 
the  main  points  on  which  I  insisted  were  three : 
First,  that  it  has  never  been  possible  permaneiUly 
to  connect  the  religion  of  forms  with  Evangelical 
religion  (p.  21.);  Second,  that  the  low  church  par- 
ty are  compeJled  to  use  a  liturgy  which  counteracts 
the  effect  of  their  teaching,  (p.  31);  and  Third,  that 
there  are  no  arrangements  or  provisions  in  the  lit- 
urgy for  promoting  their  peculiar  and  distinctive 
efforts,  or  which  contemplate  such  efforts,  (p.  50.) 
As  these  were  the  principal  points  which  I  designed 


40 

to  illustrate,  and  constituted  in  fact  the  substance 
of  the  argument,  I  propose  now  to  notice  the 
manner  in  which  the  considerations  which  I  ad- 
duced in  their  support  have  been  met  by  the  Recor- 
der. I  then  supposed,  as  I  still  do,  that  if  these 
points  were  made  out,  the  conclusion  would  be 
reached,  however  painful  it  might  be,  that  the 
Evangelical  party  in  the  Episcopal  church  are  aim- 
ing at  objects  which  can  never  be  secured,  at  least 
while  the  Liturgy  remains  as  it  is  now,  and  that  as 
a  party,  in  the  conflicts  which  have  grown  up  in 
that  church,  they  are  destined  to  inevitable  deleat ; 
that  they  must  either  secede  from  the  church,  or 
that  the  "  unity"  of  the  church  can  only  be  pre- 
served by  their  showing  that  they  prefer  that  unity 
to  the  distinctive  principles  which  they  are  aiming 
to  maintain  as  a  party. 

I  did  not  charge  them  with  "  hypocrisy,"  as  the 
Editors  of  the  Recorder  affirm  ;  I  did  not  say  that 
"  these  persons  are  just  so  much  less  honest,  or  less 
conscientious  than  either  the  Puritans  or  the  Meth- 
odists, whose  separation  has  been  before  commend- 
ed, and  whose  disinterested  sacrifices,  for  the  truth's 
sake,  are  held  up  as  so  exemplary ;"  (Recorder^ 
March  16  ;)  but  I  meant  to  say  that  there  arc  dif- 
ficulties in  their  way,  which,  so  far  as  it  strikes  one 
out  of  the  Episcopal  church,  can  never  be  over- 
come ;  that  the  high  church  party  have  manifestly 
the  advantage,  from  the  fact  that  the  Prayer  Book 
does  not  contemplate  any  such  thing  as  the  Evan- 
gelical party  are  aiming  to  secure,  and  that  if  the 
"  unity"  of  the  church  is  secured,  it  must  be  by  their 
abandoning  their  present  "position."  Whether 
this  will  be  done,  or  whether  they  will  have  inde- 
pendence enough  to  assert  the  majesty  and  glory 


41 

of  the  principles  which  they  defend,  and  to  imitate 
the  "  Reformers,  the  Puritans,  and  the  Methodists," 
remains  to  be  seen.  Time  will  determine.  I  can 
only  say,  that  I  meant  to  charge  on  them  no  lack 
of  firmness  or  honesty  in  the  maintenance  of  the 
Evangelical  principles ;  that  I  never  suspected  any 
Jow-churchman  of  "  hypocrisy  ;"  and  that  I  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  they  are  perfectly  honest  and 
sincere  in  their  attachment  to  the  Evangelical 
views. 

The  Recorder  is  right  when  it  says,  (March  16,) 
that  the  object  of  my  remarks  had  reference  to  the 
Episcopal  church  as  such,  and  not  exclusively  to 
the  Evangelical  party,  I  do  not,  indeed,  see  or 
admit  the  Justice  of  the  language  employed,  when 
die  Editors  use  the  word  "  assault,"  and  when  they 
say  that  my  object  was  to  "  destroy,  to  disparage, 
and  to  weaken  the  only  portion  of  it  which  he 
thinks  calculated  to  give  a  delusively  good  charac- 
ter to  the  whole,"  But  1  do  admit,  that  my  design 
was  to  examine  Episcopacy  itself;  to  show  its 
•essential  tendency  and  nature,  and  to  prove  that  it 
stands  at  variance  with  the  principles  and  aims  of 
the  Evangelical  party.  1  chose  to  consider  it  in 
tlie  best  form  in  which  it  has  ever  appeared,  as  held 
by  the  Evangelical  party  in  this  country,  I  did  not 
doubt,  and  cannot  now,  that  that  party  would  en- 
tirely coincide  with  me  that  Episcopacy,  as  devel- 
oped in  the  high  church  and  Oxford  party,  is  anti- 
evangelical  in  its  character,  for  all  the  peculiar 
aims  and  efforts  of  the  low  church  party,  &.s  such 
are  based  on  that  supposition,  and  they  have  never 
been  sparing  in  the  expression  of  these  views  re- 
specting their  brethren.  On  that  point,  therefore, 
it  might  be  presumed  that  we  are  agreed,  and  if  I 
4* 


42 

could  show  that  the  efforts  oi'  the  low  church  party 
are  impracticable,  and  that  those  efforts  are  a  de- 
parture from  what  was  contemplated  in  the  Prayer 
Book,  the  argument  would  be  complete.  It  re- 
mains, then,  only  to  examine  the  manner  in  which 
the  positions  which  I  laid  down  have  been  met. 

The  first  was,  that  it  has  never  been  possible  per- 
manently to  connect  the  religion  of  forms  with  Evan- 
gelical religion.  In  support  of  this,  I  referred  to 
the  fact  that  the  Saviour,  of  design,  and  with  great 
care,  separated  his  religion  from  the  Jewish  reli- 
gion, which  in  his  time  had  become  a  religion  of 
Ibrms  ;  and  that  he  was  at  great  pains  to  make  his  re- 
ligion as  simple  as  possible — prescribing  no  forms  of 
worship  as  essential — and  selecting,  as  the  rites 
which  he  wished  to  have  observed,  only  two  in 
number,  and  those  of  all  conceivable,  the  least  sus- 
ceptible of  abuse.  I  referred  to  the  fact  that  Chris- 
tianity at  the  time  of  Constantine,  became  a  religion 
of  forms ;  and  then  showed,  that,  as  a  matter  of 
historical  fact,  whenever,  from  any  cause,  the  spirit 
of  Evangelism  had  sprung  up  in  connection  with 
that  religion,  it  had  been  impossible  to  blend  them, 
but  that  a  separation  had  inevitably  ensued.  I 
then  referred  to  certain  periods  v/hen  the  Evangeli- 
cal spirit  had  been  revived  in  the  church  when  the 
religion  of  forms  prevailed  ;  and  showed  that  in 
every  instance  the  quickened  and  animated  part 
had  been  separated.  I  referred  to  the  Waldenses, 
to  the  Reformers,  to  the  Puritans,  and  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  Wesley — embracing  all  the  important 
periods  in  which  God  had  revived  the  Evangelical 
spirit  in  Prelatical  churches,  and  showing  that  the 
result,  up  to  the  present  effort  of  the  Evangelical 
party,  has  been  uniform. 


43 

The  sense  in  which   the  phrase  "  the  religion  of 
forms"  was  used. 

I  used  the  phrase  "  Religion  of  Forms"  with  no 
invidious  design,  but  as  a  matter  of  convenience.  I 
did  not  mean  to  say  that  the  religion  referred  to  was 
mere  formalism  ;  or  that  in  connection  with  that 
mode  of  worship  there  was  no  spirtuality  ;  or  that, 
in  the  language  of  the  Recorder,  "  the  worship  of 
the  Episcopal  church  is  mere  form  having  no  spir- 
itual feeling  in  the  worshipper  connected  with  it." 
I  meant  to  characterise  a  mode  of  worship  which 
is  distinguished  from  Puritan  simplicity,  or,  as  I 
believe  was  the  plain  matter  of  fact,  from  the  mode 
of  worship  which  prevailed  in  the  Christian  church  in 
the  time  of  the  apostles.  1  meant  to  use  a  term 
which  would  be  comprehensive  enough  to  embrace 
all  churches  which  use  a  prescribed  form  of  wor- 
ship as  distinguished  from  those  which  object  to 
such  prescribed  forms,  and  which  suppose  that  the 
modes  of  worship  should  be  left  substantially  to  the 
discretion  of  the  churches  and  the  ministers.  The 
phrase  is  intelligible,  and  is  sufficiently  distinctive 
for  all  practical  purposes.  Indeed,  no  one  could  well 
mistake  its  meaning.  Any  one  with  a  very  slight 
acquaintance  with  the  history  and  present  state  of 
Christianity,  would  run  the  line  without  danger  of 
material  mistake.  On  the  one  side,  he  would 
rank  the  Papal,  the  Greek,  the  Armenian,  the  Cop- 
tic, and  the  Anglo  and  Anglo-American  Episcopal 
churches  ;  and  on  the  other,  the  Reformed  churches 
of  Geneva  and  France,  the  Lutheran,  the  Reformed 
Dutch,  the  Presbyterian  of  Scotland  and  America, 
the  Congregationalist,  the  Baptist,  and  the  Metho- 
dist. To  speak  of  one  of  these  classes  as  "  the  Re- 
ligion of  Forms,"  is  not  to  say  that  the  worship  is 


44 

"  formalism,"  or  that  there  is  no  religion  in  con- 
nection with  them,  but  it  is  to  speak  of  them  as  dis- 
tinguished from  another  large  portion  of  the  chris- 
tian world.  After  considering  the  remarks  of  the 
Recorder  of  March  16,  and  April  6,  I  see  no  ob- 
jection still  to  the  use  of  the  term,  and  meaning 
nothing  invidious  by  it,  shall  continue,  for  conve- 
nience, still  to  employ  it. 

The  Recorder  has  not  called  in  question  the  truth 
of  the  fads  to  which  I  referred  respecting  the 
church  in  the  time  of  the  Saviour,  the  Waldenses, 
the  Reformers,  the  Puritans,  and  the  Weslcys. 
Those  facts  could  not  be  denied,  for  they  are  set- 
tled matters  of  history,  and  they  may  be  allowed 
to  stand  for  what  they  are  worth — as  demonstrating 
what  1  intended,  that  until  the  present  effort  of  the 
Episcopal  party,  it  has  never  been  possible  perma- 
nently to  connect  the  Religion  of  Forms  with  Evan- 
gelical Religion. 

The  reply  of  the  Recorder  to  my  main  Position. 

The  only  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  editors  of 
the  Recorder  to  meet  this  argument,  is  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  : — 

*'  The  author  says  p.  21 — that  '  the  attempt  to 
unite  the  religion  of  forms  with  the  Gospel  has  been 
often  made.'  He  instances  '  the  Jewish  religion  in 
the  time  of  our  Saviour  as  a  religion  of  forms.' 
But  what  outward  reflection  raised  up  a  party  of 
spiritual  worshippers  then?  Then  Christianity  it- 
self from  the  time  of  Constantino  became  a  religion 
of  forms.  The  Reformation  was  the  result  of  the 
evangelical  party  which  finally  grew  up  within  it. 
But  what  reflection  was  there  from  abroad  ?'  The 
Church  of  England,  immediately  after  the  Reforms- 


45 

tion  was  a  religion  of  forms.  And  the  Puritans  to 
the  number  of  '  two  thousand  of  the  best  men  in  the 
English  Church'  left  it  in  a  single  day.  What  out- 
ward reflection  raised  up  this  party  then  ?  Then 
again,  the  Church  of  England  became  a  religion  of 
forms, —  until  Wesley  and  Whitfield,  &c.,  were 
brought  forth  as  another  party  of  the  same  descrip- 
tion. What  outward  reflection  was  then  at 
work  with  such  amazing  power  ?  If  all  these 
growths  have  taken  place  in  the  body  of  a  church, 
which  was  at  the  same  time  a  mere  formal  church, 
how  absurd  becomes  the  position  that  the  present 
similar  parly,  as  it  is  assumed  to  be,  in  the  Episco- 
pal Church,  owes  its  existence  wholly  to  the  mere 
reflection  I'rom  better  churches,  with  which  it  is  en- 
compassed. The  more  rational  conclusion  would 
be,  from  the  author's  own  premises,  that  there  was 
something  in  the  nature  of  that  church  which  he 
calls  a  mere  religion  of  forms,  adapted  to  produce 
a  result  which  has  been  so  uniformly  seen  to  flow 
from  it.  Of  course,  the  question  whether  this  par- 
ty should  have  separated  from  the  church  in  which 
it  grew,  is  not  now  before  us  for  consideration. 
But  all  Mr.  Barnes'  adduced  facts  are  directly  in 
hostility  with  the  conclusion  which  he  draws  from 
them ;  laying  down  the  principle  that  the  spiritual 
or  evangelical  principle,  can  only  be  united  with 
the  religion  of  forms,  by  some  outward  influence, 
and  then  illustrating  it,  by  a  succession  of  instances, 
in  which  he  is  obliged  to  concede  that  there  was  no 
such  influence  existing.  We  do  not  mean  to  enter 
in  this  article  into  the  merits  of  the  important  ques- 
tions which  arise  in  connection  with  these  asser- 
tions,— but  merely  to  point  out  the  loose  and  unsub- 


46 

stantial  assertions,  which  this  author  would  have  his 
readers  consider  as  correct  reasoning." 

The  argument  here  is,  that  the  spirit  of  Evangel- 
ism has  sprung  vp,  or  has  been  originated  in  con- 
nection with  the  rehgion  of  forms.  This  is  a 
different  position  from  the  one  which  I  laid  down, 
and  which  the  Editors  have  thought  it  not  proper  to 
disturb — that  it  has  not  been  possible  permanently 
to  connect  the  two — but,  nevertheless,  it  is  worth 
inquiry  whether  this  is  so.  The  position  of  the 
Recorder  is,  that  the  spirit  of  Evangelism  has  often 
sprung  up  in  connection  with  the  religion  of  forms, 
or  if  the  phrase  is  preferred,  in  the  bosom  of  Prela- 
tical  churches.  Let  us  inquire  whether  it  is  so. 
That  the  spirit  of  evangelism  has  existed  for  a  time 
in  such  a  connection,  is  implied  by  my  argument, 
and  is  undeniable.  The  efforts  of  the  low  church 
party  in  this  country  prove  it.  The  question  is  as 
to  its  origin  ;  whether  it  is  to  be  traced  to  Prelacy 
— to  the  religion  of  forms — to  the  regular  work- 
ing of  the  Prayer  Book  —  or  to  some  foreign 
influence. 

In  my  Tract,  I  ventured  to  lay  down  the  follow- 
ing position : — 

"  It  is  well  known  that  there  have  been,  perhaps 
from  the  commencement  of  its  existence  in  this 
country,  two  parties  in  the  Episcopal  church.  These 
parties  are  generally  known  by  the  names  of  the 
high  and  the  low  church — or  as  the  latter  prefer,  we 
believe,  to  be  called,  the  Evangelical  party.  These 
parties  have  grown  up,  not  from  the  nature  of  Pre- 
lacy, or  by  any  tendency  in  the  Episcopal  church  to 
foster  the  aims  sought  by  the  Evangelical  party,  but 
from  the  contact  of  Episcopacy  with  the  spirit  of  our 
age,  and  with  the  free  developements  of  Christianity 


47 

among  the  other  denominations  with  whom  Episco- 
paUans  come  necessarily  in  contact.  It  is  possible 
that  the  germs  of  these  parties  existed  in  the  Episco- 
pal church  in  its  incipient  state  in  this  country,  but 
that  which  has  now  grown  up  into  the  evangelical 
parly,  we  suppose  would  have  been  suppressed  by 
the  overshadowing  of  the  religion  of  forms,  if  it  had 
not  been  excited  and  kindled  by  the  reflected  influence 
on  the  Episcopal  church  of  the  views  and  objects  of 
evangelical  christians  in  other  denominations.  It 
has  been  apparent  that  other  denominations  greatly 
surpassed  the  Episcopal  communion  in  zeal  for  those 
things  specially  commended  in  the  New  Testament  ; 
that  they  sought  a  more  spiritual  religion  than  had 
been  common  in  the  Episcopal  communion ;  that 
they  aimed  more  to  convert  and  save  the  souls  of 
men ;  and  that  they  sought  in  methods  that  had  the 
undoubted  sanction  of  the  New  Testament,  to  spread 
the  gospel  around  the  globe.  The  question  arose 
whether  these  objects  could  not  be  grafted  on  Epis- 
copacy, and  whether  without  producing  schism,  and 
with  the  maintenance  of  the  highest  respect  for 
Prelacy  and  for  the  forms  of  religion,  it  was  not 
possible  to  introduce  the  evangelical  spirit  into  the 
bosom  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  to  what  was 
regarded  as  the  nobleness,  venerableness,  and  autho- 
rity of  her  ancient  forms,  add  the  life  and  vigour  and 
elastic  energy,  which  reigns  with  such  power  in 
other  denominations.  If  so,  it  seems  to  have  been 
supposed,  there  might  be  urged  in  favour  of  Prelacy 
all  that  is  now  urged  from  the  necessity  of  the 
'  apostolic  succession ;'  all  the  authority  of  the 
Fathers  ;  all  its  boasted  power  to  preserve  the  unity 
of  the  church ;  and  all  the  advantage  derived  from 
a  staid  and  regular  organization,  united  with  all  that 


48 

commends  evangelical   religion  to  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men.*' 

The  question  now  is,  whether  this  sentiment  is 
correct,  or  whether  the  position  of  the  Recorder  is 
the  true  one.  It  would  have  been,  perhaps,  more 
satisfactory  if  the  Recorder  had  "  entered  into  tlie 
merits  of  the  important  questions  which  arise  in 
connection  with  these  assertions."  As  I  regard  the 
point  now  before  us  as  furnishing  an  opportunity  of 
making  an  advance  in  the  inquiry  into  the  essential 
tendency  of  all  "  religions  of  forms,"  it  is  my 
intention  to  enter,  somewhat  minutely,  into  the  ex- 
amination of  these  "  important  questions."  It  will 
be  convenient  to  take  up  the  points  referred  to  in 
order,  and  if  I  am  wrong  in  the  position,  it  will  be 
very  easy  to  show  it. 

The  Argument  from  the  Jeicish  Community. 

(1.)  The  first  relates  to  the  source  of  the  evan- 
gelical or  spiritual  influence  in  the  Jewish  commu- 
nity. The  Recorder  asks  with  some  appearance 
of  triumph,  "  what  outward  reflection  raised  up  a 
party  of  spiritual  worshippers  thenl"  The  answer 
to  this  is  easy,  and  it  is  a  matter  of  surprise  that  it 
should  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  Editors  of  the 
Recorder.  It  was  the  "foreign"  influence  introduced 
by  the  Son  of  God,  sent  from  heaven.  It  never 
originated  in  the  bosom  of  the  Jewish  community ; 
it  was  no  part  of  the  working  of  their  system  of 
forms ;  it  was  the  result  of  none  of  the  aims  of  the 
Pharisees,  the  Sadducees,  or  the  Essenes.  It  had 
no  connection  with  the  religion  of  forms  there,  ex- 
cept that  the  Saviour  was  born  a  Jew  ;  but  was  in 
its  spirit,  its  origin,  its  aims,  wholly  from  abroad — 
and  the  Saviour  took  good  care  that  the  spirit  of 


49 

evangelism  which  he  originated  should  not  be  in 
danger  of  being  frozen  in  the  germ  by  being  con- 
nected with  the  prevailing  religion  of  forms,  or 
with  any  other. 

If  it  should  be  said  here,  that  God  himself  insti- 
tuted the  Jevv'ish  religion  as  a  religion  of  forms,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  argument  which  I  employed  on 
the  subject,  is  a  "sophism,"  I  would  reply,  that  it 
is  true  that  God  instituted  that  religion,  and  that  it 
was,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  religion  of  forms.     But 
some  other  things  are  also   true.     (1.)  It  is  true 
that  it  had  not  some  of  the   things  that  go  to  make 
up  the  religion  of  forms  under  Chrisiianity.    It  had 
no   stereotyped  liturgy  in   forms  of  prayer  which 
were  always  used  in  the  temple  service,  or  in  the 
synagogue.     (2.)  It  became  as  formal  a  religion  as 
it  could  be.     The  experiment  was  fairly  made,  and 
after  a  trial  of  some  fifteen  hundred  years,  its  ten- 
dency was  seen ;  all  spirituality  had  ceased ;  it  was 
declared  to  be  a  'burden  which  could  not  be  borne,' 
and  it  gave  way  to  a  more  spiritual  mode  of  wor- 
ship.    There  were  important  reasons  which  could 
easily  be  stated,  why  religion  should,  at  that  time, 
and  among  that  people,  have  as  much  of  form  as 
it  had,  and  it  was  worth  one  well-tried  experiment 
to  convince  the   world  of  the  tendency  of  such  a 
religion,  and  to  show  the  impracticability  of  blending 
a  religion  of  forms  with  evangelical  or  spiritual  re- 
ligion.    Did  it  work  well  1     Did  it  show  that  it  was 
well  adapted  to  become  the  religion  of  the  world  1 
Did  the  Saviour  show  that  he  was  disposed  to  per- 
petuate and  enlarge  the  experiment?     See  Heb. viii. 
7,  10,  12.:  "For  if  that  first  covenant  had  been 
faultless,  then  should  no  place  have  been  found  for 
the  second."     "  This  is  the  covenant  which  I  will 
5 


50 

make  with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days, 
saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  laws  in  their  mind, 
and  write  them  in  their  hearts."  "In  that  he  saith, 
A  new  covenant,  he  hath  made  the  first  old.  Now 
that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth  old,  is  ready  to 
vanish  away."  Heb.  ix.  9, 10.  "  Which  was  a  figure 
for  the  time  then  present,  in  which  were  offered 
both  gifts  and  sacrifices,  that  could  not  make  him 
that  did  the  service  perfect,  as  pertaining  to  the 
conscience.  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks, 
and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordinances,  im- 
posed on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation.''''  Such 
is  Paul's  view  of  the  ancient  religion  of  forms.  In- 
deed, the  whole  design  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews is  to  win  those  whom  the  author  addressed 
from  their  attachment  to  that  religion  of  forms  ;  to 
prevent  their  return  to  it;  to  show  them  that  Chris- 
tianity had  all  that  was  truly  great  and  divine 
which  there  was  in  the  ancient  system,  with  none 
of  its  disadvantages;  and  to  show  them,  that  though 
it  had  no  gorgeous  rites  and  ceremonies  such  as 
then  were  in  the  temple,  it  was  far  better  fitted  to 
secure  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  If  outward 
forms  were  so  well  adapted  to  promote  spiritual  re- 
ligion as  Episcopalians  seem  to  suppose,  can  they 
well  explain  how  it  was  that  the  Saviour  did  not 
seek  to  retain  what  there  was  of  form,  and  pomp, 
and  splendour,  in  the  Jewish  worship,  and  to  in- 
corporate it  with  his  religion  1  Will  they  show 
why  it  was  that  he  so  effectually  separated  his  own 
church  from  that  religion,  and  instituted  a  mode  of 
worship  with  the  fewest  conceivable  forms  of  devo- 
tion 1  And  will  they  explain  hew  it  was,  that  the 
constant  tendency  of  that  religion  was  to  lose  all 
spirituality,  and  to  degenerate  into  a  cold  and  heart- 


51 

less  formalism,  from  which  neither  prophets  nor 
judgments  could  arouse  its  votaries  ?  Perhaps  the 
world  has  never  since  furnished  a  more  striking 
illustration  of  the  inevitable  tendency  of  the  religion 
of  forms  than  the  Jewish  religion  was  in  the  time  of 
the  Saviour. 

The  Argument  from  the  Reformation. 

(2.)  The  next  point  referred  to  by  the  Editors  of 
the  Recorder,  is  the  Reformation.  There  were  at 
that  time  in  the  bosom  of  the  Papal  church  true 
and  spiritually  minded  christians,  to  whom  the  Re- 
formation is  to  be  traced.  The  Editors  do  not  at- 
tempt to  deny  my  position  in  regard  to  them,  that 
they  found  it  impracticable  to  remain  in  connection 
with  the  Papacy,  and  that  they  were  obliged  to  se- 
parate from  the  religion  of  forms ;  but  they  im- 
pliedly affirm,  that  the  piety  of  the  Reformers  was 
the  fruit  of  that  reliojion,  and  that  the  revivinor 
spirit  of  piety  was  to  be  traced  to  no  foreign  in- 
fluence. "  What  reflection,"  say  they,  "  was  there 
from  abroad?"  A  very  slight  knowledge  of  history 
will  enable  any  one  to  answer  this  question,  and 
to  determine  whether  the  light  which  beamed  on 
the  mind  of  Luther  and  Melancthon,  on  Farel, 
Viret  and  Calvin,  nay,  on  the  mind  of  Erasmus,  was 
light  reflected  from  Papal  forms  and  ceremonies. 
The  light  which  Luther  saw  was  that  which  beamed 
from  the  pages  of  the  vokuPiC  of  Scripture  which  he 
had  in  his  cell, and  not  from  the  gorgeous  vestments, 
processions,  and  imposing  splendor  of  the  Papal  rit- 
ual.' The  observing  of  the  Papal  ceremonies  at  Rome, 
confirmed  his  growing  abhorrence  of  the  rites  of 
that  mode  of  worship,  and  impressed  upon  his  soul, 


02 

by  contrast,  in  a  manner  which  neither  time,  perse- 
cution, nor  obloquy  could  obliterate,  the  declara- 
tion, "  the  just  shall  Kve  by  faith."  But  apart  from 
this,  is  any  one  ignorant  that  the  growing  light  in 
Europe  which  preceded  the  Reformation,  and  which 
contributed  to  it,  and  which  made  it  practicable  at 
all,  was  from  a  foreign  influence  1  The  reviving 
literature  of  that  age  had  not  its  origin  in  the  Papal 
communion  ;  the  growing  love  of  freedom,  and  the 
large  and  liberal  views  which  appeared  in  the  north 
of  Germany,  and  which  sustained  the  Reformation, 
were  not  originated  in  the  bosom  of  the  Papal  com- 
munion, nor  did  the  Papacy  foster  those  views 
when  they  came  in  from  abroad.  A  century  before 
Luther  appeared,  Wickliffe,  Huss,  and  Jerome  of 
Prague,  had  felt  on  their  souls  the  impress  of 
truth  originated  by  the  Bible ;  but  the  power  oi' 
that  religion  crushed  the  tender  germ  of  piety,  and 
it  was  not  until  a  foreign  influence  had  moulded 
Europe  in  an  insensible  manner  for  a  century 
longer,  that  the  evangelical  spirit  of  Luther  was 
saved  from  being  crushed  by  the  same  religion  of 
forms.  The  VValdenses  had  been  ejected,  and  were 
crushed  as  far  as  the  Papal  power  could  crush 
them  ;  Huss  and  Jerome  were  burned  at  the  stake , 
the  bones  of  Wicklifle  were  dug  up  and  burned  ; 
Luther  was  excommunicated  and  anathematized  ; 
the  Inquisition  was  originated  to  crush  and  extin- 
guish the  grov/ing  spirit  of  Evangelism  in  the  Papal 
church  ;  all  the  power  of  the  Papacy  was  employed 
to  exclude  that  spirit,  or  to  extinguish  it  in  Italy 
and  Spain  ;  the  Duke  of  Alva  deluged  the  Low 
Countries  with  the  blood'  of  those  who  had  ex- 
changed a  religion  of  forms  for  spiritual  religion, 
and  from  neither  Pope,  nor  Cardinal,  nor  Archbish- 


53 

op,  nor  Bishop,  nor  Priest,  did  the  spirit  of  Evan- 
gelism, as  it  appeared  at  the  Reformation,  iiiid  a 
patron. 

The  Argument  from  the  Puritatis. 

('3.)  The  next  reference  of  the  Recorder  is  to 
the  Puritans  in  England.  This  reference  is  in  the 
following  words,  '  The  Church  of  England,  imme- 
diately after  the  Reformation,  was  a  religion  of 
Ibrms.  And  the  Puritans,  to  the  number  of  "  two 
thousand  of  the  best  men  in  the  Elnglish  church, 
left  it  in  a  single  day."  What  outward  refection 
raised  up  this  party  then  V  The  idea  of  the  Re- 
corder seem.s  to  be,  that  the  Puritan  spirit  was  origi- 
nated wholly  in  the  bosom  of  the  Episcopal  church 
in  England,  and  was  sustained  by  it ;  that  it  was 
to  be  traced  to  no  foreign  and  reflected  influence; 
and  that  to  the  tbstering  care  of  that  kind  and  indul- 
gent mother  in  the  days  of  Elizabeth,  James  I.,  and 
Charles  I.,  under  the  auspices  of  Laud  and  his 
meek  fellow-labourers,  this  s[)irit  had  been  so  care- 
fully nourished  that  "  two  thousand  of  the  best  men 
in  the  church"  were  prepared  to  leave  it.  They 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Puritans, 
will  ask  with  some  degree  of  interest,  if  not  of  sur- 
prise, what  there  was  in  the  Episcopal  church  of 
those  times  which  was  so  skilfully  adapted  to  ori- 
ginate and  sustain  the  Puritan  spirit.  They  will 
wonder  how  it  was  that  that  spirit  grew  under  the 
administration  of  Laud,  and  what  there  was  in  the 
Restoration  of  the  amiable  Charles  II.  that  was  so 
favourable  to  its  growth.  To  most  readers  of  the 
History  of  England,  it  has  seemed  that  there  was  a 
very  marked  diflerence  between  the  aims  of  the  Pu- 
ritans, and  those  which  prevailed  in  the  established 
5* 


5-1 

church  ;  that  there  was  little  in  that  church,  in  the 
times  referred  to,  to  foster  their  Evangelical  spirit ; 
that  they  met  Avith  some  not  unimportant  obstruc- 
tions in  the  maintenance  of  their  views,  from  the 
days  of  Elizabeth  to  those  of  Charles  II. ;  that  they 
had  doubts  about  the  propriety  of  many  things  in 
the  church  which  appeared  to  them  to  savor  much 
of  the  religion  of  ibrms  ;  and  that  their  peculiar 
views  as  Puritans  grew  up,  not  in  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  the  church,  but  in  spite  of  every  attempt  to 
crush  them. 

But  still,  the  Recorder  asks  ''  What  outvvard  re- 
tlection  raised  up  this  party  then  ?"  Was  there  any 
foreign  influence  which  had  any  agency  in  cherish- 
ing and  moulding  the  Puritan  spirit?  Was  there 
any  reflection  from  a  foreign  church  which  contrib- 
uted any  thing  to  make  the  Puritan  what  he  was  ? 
These  questions  I  am  able  to  answer  in  eloquent 
words  and  thoughts.  1  copy  from  the  speech  of 
the  Hon.  Rufus  Choate  before  the  New  England 
Society  in  New  York,  Dec.  1843.  I  make  the  ex- 
tract on  account  of  its  own  singular  beauty  and 
value,  as  well  as  for  its  bearing  on  my  argument. 
It  is  long;  but  I  shall  be  doing  service  by  inducing 
any  one  to  read  it  who  has  not  seen  it  before  : 

"  Puritanism  was  planted  in  the  region  of  storms, 
and  there  it  grew.  Sv/ayed  this  way  and  that  by 
a  whirlwind  of  blasts,  all  adverse,  it  sent  down  its 
roots  below  frost,  or  drought,  on  the  bed  of  the 
avalanche.  Its  trunk  went  up  erect,  gnarled, 
seamed,  not  riven  by  the  bolt;  the  evergreen  en- 
folded its  brandies,  its  blossom  was  like  to  that  en- 
sanguined flower,  inscribed  with  woe. 

"  One  influence  there  was,  however,  on  the  his- 
tory of  English  Puritanism  whose  permanent  and 


55 

various  effect  on  its  doctrines,  character  and  desti- 
nies, is  among  the  most  striking  things  in  the  whole 
history  of  opinion.  I  mean  its  contact  with  the 
republican  reforms  of  the  Continent,  and  particular- 
ly those  of  Geneva.  In  all  its  stages,  all  the  disci- 
ples of  the  Reformation,  v/herever  they  lived,  were, 
in  some  sense,  a  single  brotherhood,  whom  a  diver- 
sity of  speech,  hostility  of  governments,  and  remote- 
ness of  place,  could  hot  wholly  keep  apart.  Local 
persecutions  drew  the  tie  the  closer.  In  the  reign 
of  Mary,  from  1553  to  1558,  a  thousand  learned 
Englishmen  fled  from  the  stake,  at  home,  to  the 
happier  seats  of  Continental  Protestantism.  Of 
tliem,  great  numbers,  I  know  not  how  many,  came 
to  Geneva.  There  they  awaited  the  death  of  the 
Queen  ;  and  then,  sooner  or  later,  but  in  the  time 
of  Elizabeth  went  back  to  England.  I  ascribe  to 
that  five  years  in  Geneva  an  inJI.uence  that  has 
changed  the  history  of  the  world.  I  seem  to  my- 
self to  trace  to  it,  as  an  influence  on  the  English 
race,  a  new  theology,  a  new  politics,  another  tone 
of  character,  the  opening  of  another  era  of  time  and 
of  liberty.  I  seem  to  myself  to  trace  to  it,  a  portion, 
at  least,  of  the  objects  of  tlie  great  civil  war  in  Eng- 
land, the  Republican  constitution  framed  in  the  cabin 
of  the  i^Iay  flower,  the  divinity  of  Jonathan  Edwards, 
the  battle  of  Bunker  Hill,  and  the  Independence  of 
America.  In  that  brief  season,  English  Puritanism 
was  changed  fundamentally  and  forever.  Why 
should  we  think  this  so  extraordinary  ?  There  are 
times  when  whole  years  pass  over  the  head  of  a 
man,  and  work  no  change  of  mind  at  all.  There 
are  others,  again,  when  in  an  hour,  old  things  pass 
away,  and  all  things  become  nev/.  A  verse  of  the 
Bible,  a  glorious  line  of  some  old  poet,  dead  a  thou- 


56 

sand  years  before,  the  new-made  grave  of  a  child, 
a  friend  killed  by  a  thunderbolt,  as  in  the  case  of 
Luther,  some  single  more  than  tolerable  pang  of 
'  despised  love,'  some  single  more  intolerable  act 
of  the  '  oppressor's  wrong  and  proud  man's  con- 
tumely,' the  gleam  of  rarer  beauty  on  the  lake  or 
in  the  sky,  something  higher  than  the  fall  of  a  leaf, 
or  a  bird's  song  on  the  shore,  draws  tears  from 
him,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye. — When,  before  or 
since,  in  the  history  of  the  world  was  the  human 
character  subjected  to  an  accumulation  of  agents,  so 
fitted  to  create  it  all  anew,  as  those  which  encom- 
passed the  English  exiles  at  Geneva  ? 

"  I  do  not  make  much  account  in  this  of  the 
material  grandeur  and  beauty  which  burst  on  their 
astonished  senses,  as  around  the  solitudes  of  Patmos. 
It  is  of  the  moral  agents  of  change  of  which  I 
would  speak.  Passing  over  the  theology  which 
they  learned  there,  consider  the  politics  they  learned 
there.  Consider  that  the  asylum  into  which  they 
had  been  admitted,  the  city  which  had  opened  its 
arms  to  pious  and  learned  men,  banished  by  an 
English  throne,  and  an  English  hierarchy,  was  a 
republic.  In  the  giant  hands  of  guardian  moun- 
tains, ascending  from  their  '  silent  sea  of  pines,' 
above  the  thunder  clouds,  and  reposing  there, 
calmly,  amidst  their  encircling  stars,  while  the 
storm  raved  by,  below  ;  before  which  forests,  and  the 
cathedral-tombs  of  kings  went  down ;  on  the  banks 
of  a  contrasted  lake,  lovelier  than  a  dream  of  fairy- 
land, in  a  valley  which  might  have  been  hollowed  out 
to  enclose  the  last  home  of  liberty,  there  smiled  an 
independent,  peaceful,  law  abiding,  and  prosperous 
commonwealth.  There  was  a  state  without  king 
or  nobles,  there  was  a  church  without  a  bishop; 


there  was  a  people,  governed  by  laws  of  their  own 
making,  and  by  rules  of  their  own  choosing.  And 
to  the  eye  of  these  exiles,  bruised  and  pierced 
through,  by  the  accumulated  oppressions  of  a  civil 
and  spiritual  tyranny,  to  whom  there  were  coming 
tidings,  every  day,  out  of  England,  that  another 
victim  had  been  struck  down,  on  whose  dear  still 
home  in  the  sea  there  fell,  every  day,  a  gloomier 
shadow  from  the  frowning  turrets  of  power ;  was 
not  that  republic  the  brightest  image  in  the  whole 
transcendent  scene?  Do  you  doubt  that  they  turned 
from  Alpine  beauty  and  Alpine  grandeur,  to  look, 
with  a  loftier  emotion,  for  the  first  time  in  their 
lives,  on  the  serene,  unveiled  statue  of  Classical 
Liberty  ?  Do  you  not  think  that  this  spectacle,  in 
their  circumstances,  and  in  their  moods,  prompted 
pregnant  doubts,  daring  hopes,  new  ideas,  '  thoughts 
that  wake  to  perish  never,'  doubts,  hopes,  ideas, 
and  thoughts,  of  which  a  new  age  is  born?  Was 
it  not  then  and  there  that  the  dream  of  Republican 
Liberty,  a  dream  to  be  realized  somewhere,  per- 
haps in  England,  perhaps  in  some  region  of  the 
western  sun,  first  mingled  itself  with  the  general 
impulses  and  the  general  hopes  of  the  Reformation? 
Was  that  dream  ever  let  go,  down  to  the  morning 
of  that  day.  when  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  met  in  the 
cabin  of  their  shattered  bark,  and  then,  as  she  rose 
and  fell  on  the  stern  New  England  sea,  and  the 
voices  of  the  November  forests  rang  through  her 
torn  topmast  rigging,  subscribed  the  first  republican 
constitution  of  the  New  World  ?  I  confess  myself 
to  be  of  the  opinion  of  those  who  trace  to  that  spot 
;ind  to  that  time  the  Republicanism  of  the  Puritans. 
I  confess,  too,  that  I  love  to  trace  the  pedigree  of 
our  trans-Atlantic  liberty,  thus  backwards,  through 


58 

Switzerland,  to  its  native  land  of  Greece.  I  think 
this  is  the  true  line  of  succession,  down  which  it 
has  descended.  I  agree  with  Swifl,  and  Dryden, 
and  Bishop  Burnet,  in  that  hypothesis.  There  was 
a  liberty,  no  doubt,  which  the  Puritans  found,  and 
kept,  and  improved,  in  England.  They  would 
have  changed  it,  but  were  not  able.  But  that  was 
a  kind  of  liberty,  which  admitted  and  demanded  an 
inequality  of  man,  an  insubordination  of  ranks,  a 
favoured  eldest  son,  the  ascending  orders  of  a 
hierarchy^  the  vast  and  constant  pressure  of  a 
superincumbent  crown.  It  was  the  liberty  of  Feu- 
dalism. It  was  the  liberty  of  a  united  monarchy, 
overhung  and  shaded  by  the  imposing  architecture 
of  great  antagonist  elements  of  the  state.  Such  was 
not  the  form  of  liberty  which  our  fathers  brought 
with  them.  Allowing,  of  course,  for  that  anoma- 
lous relation  to  the  English  crown  three  thousand 
miles  off,  it  was  republican  freedom  as  perfect  the 
moment  they  stepped  on  the  rock  as  it  is  to-day. 
It  had  not  all  been  born  in  the  woods  of  Germany ; 
or  between  the  Elbe  and  the  Ider,  or  on  the  level 
of  Runnymede.  It  was  the  child  of  other  climes 
and  other  days.  It  sprang  to  life  in  Greece.  It 
gilded,  next,  the  early  and  the  middle  age  of  Italy. 
It  then  reposed  in  the  hollow  breast  of  the  Alps.  It 
descended,  at  length,  on  the  iron-bound  coast  of 
New  England,  '  and  set  the  stars  of  glory  there.' 
At  every  stage  of  its  course,  in  every  new  re- 
appearance, it  was  guarded  by  some  new  security ; 
it  was  embodied  in  some  new  element  of  order ;  it 
was  fertile  of  some  larger  good ;  it  glowed  with  a 
more  exceeding  beauty.  Speed  its  way,  and  per- 
fect its  nature ! 


59 

•' '  Take,  freedom  I  lake  thy  radiant  round, 
When  dimmed,  revive,  when  lost  return! 
Till  not  a  shrine  on  earth  be  found, 
On  which  thy  glory  shall  not  burn  I'  " 

One  question  may  be  asked  here.  Who  can 
tell  how  much  this  foreign  influence,  thus  derived 
from  Geneva^  has  contributed  to  make  the  Episco- 
pal church  what  it  has  been  in  its  best  days  in 
England  and  America  ?  The  Episcopal  church, 
in  its  articles,  and  in  the  best  spirit  which  has 
reigned  in  it,  owes  a  debt  to  Peter  Martyr,  Martin 
Bucer,  and  John  Calvin,  which  it  has  not  yet  fully 
acknowledged. 

The  Argument  from  the  Methodist  Secession, 

(4.)  The  next  allusion  in  the  argument  of  the 
Editors,  is  to  Wesley  and  Whitetield.  'Then 
again  the  church  of  England  became  a  religion  of 
forms,  until  Wesley  and  Whitefield,  &c.,  were 
brought  forth  as  another  party  of  the  same  descrip- 
tion. "  What  outward  ?'eJIection,''^  say  they,  "  ivas 
then  at  work  with  such  amazing  power  V  '  To  this 
I  reply  :  Wesley,  and  Whitetield,  and  Fletcher, 
and  the  little  band  with  whom  Methodism  origi- 
nated,  were  indeed  born  in  the  Episcopal  church, 
and  were  reared  in  it.  God  breathed  on  their 
Iiearts,  and  they  gave  themselves  in  the  University 
to  the  study  of  the  Bible,  and  not  to  the  study  of 
the  Prayer  Book.  In  the  church  of  England  at 
that  time,  as  all  know  who  have  ever  read  the  his- 
tory of  Methodism,  there  was  nothing  either  to 
originate  or  foster  the  spirit  of  piety  which  God  had 
implanted  in  their  youthful  hearts.  It  was  over  the 
coldness,  and  formality,  and  deadness  of  that  same 
Episcopal  church,  that  they  wept,  and  fasted,  and 


60 

prayed.  Do  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder  mean  to 
be  understood  as  saying,  that  at  that  time  there  was 
anything  in  the  prevailing  spirit  of  piety  in  Oxford, 
or  in  the  established  church  anywhere,  that  origi- 
nated the  feelings  which  warmed  the  hearts  of  John 
and  Charles  Wesley]  Do  they  mean  to  say  that 
that  spirit  was  fostered  and  patronised  by  the  Epis- 
copal church  at  that  time  1  In  the  Heads  of  the 
Universities  ;  in  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops  of 
the  land  ;  in  the  great  body  of  the  ministers,  and  in 
the  prevailing  spirit  in  the  members  of  the  church, 
did  they  find  a  response  to  the  warm  and  elevated  as- 
pirations of  religion  which  animated  their  souls  1  Can 
these  Editors  have  been  ignorant — one  of  whom  was 
once  connected  with  that  persuasion  himself — in 
what  way  the  zeal  of  the  Wesleys  was  met  in  the 
University  ;  in  what  way  the  very  name  "  Metho- 
dist" was  originated,  and  how  the  labors  of  White- 
field  and  the  Wesleys  were  regarded  by  the  estab- 
lishment 1  The  established  church  patronised  them 
very  much  as  it  did  the  Puritans  ;  and  after  years 
of  toil,  and  prayer,  and  tears,  in  as  honest  an 
effort  as  was  ever  made  for  anything,  to  blend  the 
religion  of  forms  and  the  Evanoelical  soirit  of 
"  Methodism  ;"  the  followers  of  Wesley  bade  fare- 
well forever  to  the  church  of  their  fathers,  and 
breathed  the  pure  air  of  freedom  in  a  separate  or- 
ganisation. Between  them  and  the  religion  of  the 
Episcopal  church,  there  was  no  beating  of  heart 
against  heart ;  no  response  of  affection ;  and  no 
kindling  sympathy  of  soul.  What  has  the  Metho- 
dist church  ever  owed  to  Episcopacy,  except  the 
privilege  of  withdrawing  from  it  1  And  how  has  the 
fostering  care  of  that  establishment  ever  contributed 
anything   to  promote    its    growth,  except   as   our 


61 

mother  country  contributed  to  freedom  in  the  United 
States,  by  making  a  total  separation  necessary  ?  If 
there  was  ever  an  honest  effort  made  to  infuse  into 
a  rehgion  of  forms  a  pure  Evangelical  spirit,  it  was 
that  which  was  made  by  the  Wesleys  to  breathe  it 
into  the  established  church  of  England.  If  ever 
there  was  a  spirit  of  foreign  growth,  it  was  the 
spirit  of  Methodism  springing  up  in  the  Episcopal 
church  ;  if  ever  there  was  any  experiment  that  was 
conclusively  settled  to  be  impracticable,  it  was  the 
honest  attempt  then  made  to  mfuse  the  Evangelical 
spirit  of  the  Wesleys  into  the  established  church  of 
England. 

How  will  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder  explain  the 
fact  that  they  were  constrained,  as  the  Puritans  had 
been  before  them,  to  separate  forever  from  the 
church  of  their  fathers  ?  If  the  evangelical  spirit  is 
congenial  with  the  religion  of  forms,  why  did  they 
not  remain  there?  Why  were  they  not  fostered 
and  patronised  ?  Why  did  not  the  Heads  of  the 
Universities,  and  the  prelates  and  priests  of  the 
land,  press  them  to  their  bosom  as  fellow  laborers  1 
They  did  not  separate  on  account  of  doctrines — for 
their  doctrines  would  have  been  tolerated  then,  as 
they  are  now.  They  were  not  ejected  for  want  of 
talent  or  learning,  for  England  had  few  better  scho- 
lars, and  no  men  of  higher  talent  for  a  great  work, 
than  John  Wesley.  "  The  church"  did  not  refuse 
its  fostering  care  because  they  were  not  good  men — 
for  England  had  no  better  men  than  they  were  ;  and 
until  some  better  solution  shall  be  proposed,  I  am 
constrained  to  abide  by  the  view  which  I  before  ex- 
pressed, that  the  separation  of  the  Wesleys  and  of 
Whitefield  was  just  one  illustration  of  my  main  po- 
6 


62 

sition  of  the  "  impossibility  of  permanently  blending 
evangelical  religion  with  the  religion  of  forms." 

The  argument  from  Episcopacy  in  our  own  country. 

(5.)  The  next  illustration  of  this  subject  is  de- 
rived from  our  own  country.  I  had  said  in  my 
Tract  (p.  9),  '  that  these  parties  have  grown  up,  not 
from  the  nature  of  prelacy,  or  by  any  tendency  in 
the  Episcopal  church  to  foster  the  aims  sought  by 
the  Evangelical  party,  but  from  the  contact  of 
Episcopacy  with  the  spirit  of  our  age,  and  with  the 
free  developements  of  Christianity  among  the  other 
denominations  with  whom  Episcopalians  come  ne- 
cessarily in  contact.'  To  this  the  editors  say  in 
reply,  "  If  all  these  growths  have  taken  place  in  the 
body  of  a  church  which  was  at  the  same  time  a  for- 
mal church — how  absurd  becomes  the  position  that 
the  present  similar  party,  as  it  is  assumed  to  be,  in 
the  Episcopal  church,  owes  its  existence  wholly  to 
the  reflection  from  better  churches  with  whom  it  is 
encompassed.  The  more  rational  conclusion  would 
be,  from  the  author's  own  premises,  that  there  was 
something  in  the  nature  of  that  church  which  he 
calls  a  mere  religion  of  forms"  (a  thing,  by  the 
way,  which  I  have  not  done)  "  adapted  to  produce 
a  result  which  has  been  seen  so  uniformly  to  have 
flowed  from  it."  Whether  the  result  has  been  "  uni- 
form'^ that  the  religion  of  forms  has  originated  an 
evangelical  spirit,  is  not  the  point  now  before  us. 
The  only  "  uniformity,"  so  far  as  appears,  has 
been,  that  whenever  that  spirit  has  been  originated 
in  such  a  connection,  it  has  been  impossible  to  blend 
them,  and  there  has  been  a  certain  separation — as 
in  the  case  of  the  Waldenses,  at  the  Reformation, 
among  the  Puritans,  and  in  the  case  of  the  Wesleys. 


63 

The  question  now  is,  whether  the  evangelical  spirit 
in  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  land  has  been  origi- 
nated "  by  something  in  the  nature  of  that  church,^^ 
and  has  been  "  fostered"  by  it  ?  Or  is  it  to  be 
traced  to  a  foreign  influence — to  the  "  reflection" 
from  the  better  churches  with  which  it  is  encom- 
passed ? 

This  is  an  enquiry  into  a  fact.  It  would  be 
very  natural  then  to  ask  at  what  time  the  Evangel- 
ical party  in  the  Episcopal  church  had  its  origin  1 
It  would  be  obvious  to  enquire  what  was  the  gene- 
ral character  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  Virginia, 
in  the  Carolinas,  and  elsewhere  in  the  colonies,  be- 
fore the  American  Revolution?  How  many  of 
them  opened  their  pulpits  to  the  labors  of  White- 
field  ?  How  many  embraced  John  Wesley  when  he 
even  still  professed  to  belong  to  the  establishment  ? 
How  many  participated  in  the  revival  of  religion  in 
the  time  of  the  "  great  awakening  ?"  And  it  is  na- 
tural also  to  ask  what  classes  of  men  compose  the 
present  Evangelical  party  in  the  church,  and  what 
influences  have  been  made  to  bear  on  them  in  their 
early  training  ]  On  this  subject,  I  am  in  possession 
of  some  facts  which  have  much  influenced  my  mind, 
of  a  private  character,  and  which  I  do  not  think  it 
proper  to  introduce  into  an  argument  before  the  pub- 
lic. To  the  present  standing  and  usefulness  of  those 
referred  to  they  would  be  by  no  means  dishonorable 
but  they  would  show  that  that  party  is  not  a  little 
indebted  to  "  a  reflected  influence  from  other  de- 
nominations."— I  deem  it  proper,  in  an  argument 
of  this  kind,  to  refer  only  to  things  of  a  public  na- 
ture. From  the  Episcopal  Recorder  of  January  27, 
1844,  I  take  the  following  statement  : — 

"  Of  the  American  bishops  who  have  joined  the 


64 

church  from  other  denominations,  are  the  follow- 
ing :  Jarvis,  Provoost,  Bass,  Chase,  Brownell,  Ra- 
venscroft.  Smith,  Otey,  and  Lee.  Of  two  hundred 
and  eighty-five  persons  ordained  by  Bishop  Gris- 
wold,  two  hundred  and  seven  came  into  the  minis- 
try of  the  Episcopal  church  from  other  denomina- 
tions. At  least  two-thirds  of  the  clergy  of  the 
churches  in  this  country  were  not  educated  Episco- 
palians. And  within  the  last  thirty  years,  about 
three  hundred  ministers  of  other  denominations 
have  entered  the  ministry  of  the  Episcopal  church." 

So  also  in  the  paper  of  February  3,  1844,  the 
Editors  say — 

"  The  real  cause  of  all  the  hostility  (to  the  Epis- 
copal church)  is  the  remarkable  increase  of  the 
Episcopal  church  by  additions  from  other  denomi- 
nations of  christians y 

Of  the  correctness  of  these  statements,  I  have  no 
means  of  judging,  but  have  no  disposition  to  call 
them  in  question.  Nor  have  I  any  of  determining 
from  what  "  other  denominations^''''  (not  churches,  I 
presume.)  the  "  two  hundred  and  seven  persons  or- 
dained by  Bishop  Griswold,"  nor  the  "  three  hun- 
dred '  ministers  of  other  denominations'  "  who  have 
been  transferred  into  "  clergy men^^  of  the  "  church^^ 
came,  but  it  may  be  presumed  that  most  of  them 
came  from  Evangelical  "  denominations."  A  few 
have  been  received  from  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  but  it  is  not  probable  that  they  are  included 
here,  as  it  would  not  be  necessary  to  "  ordain" 
them ;  and  there  is  a  bare  possibility  that  a  kw 
may  have  gone  into  the  Episcopal  church  from  the 
Unitarians,  or  Friends.  The  mass,  probably,  have 
been  Methodists  ;  and  a  small  portion  of  them,  we 
know,  have  been   Presbyterians.     If  these  state- 


65 

ments  are  true,  is  it  unnatural  to  ask  the  Editors  of 
that  paper  whether  there  is  not  some  reason  to  be- 
lieve, that,  in  accordance  with  the  statement  which 
I  made,  the  evangelical  influence  in  that  communion 
may  be  somehow  connected  with  "  the  reflected  in- 
fluence on  the  Episcopal  church  of  the  views  and 
objects  of  Evangelical  christians  in  other  denomi- 
nations ?" 

No  one  can  be  blind  to  the  fact  that  the  very 
leaders  of  the  Evangelical  party  in  the  Episcopal 
church  are  themselves  men  who  may  possibly  owe 
something  to  this  foreign  influence,  and  do  some- 
thing 10  show  that  there  is  no  very  direct  tendency 
in  Episcopacy  to  originate  the  spirit  of  Evangelism. 
The  "  Bishop  of  Michigan,"  and  the  assistant 
Bishop  of  Virginia,  were  trained  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Presbyterian  church  ;  the  "  Bishop  of  Ohio" 
may  possibly  owe  something  to  the  fact  that  he  re- 
ceived his  theological  training  at  Princeton,  after 
the  views  of  the  "  straitest  sect"  in  the  Presbyterian 
church  ;  and  not  a  few  of  the  present  members  of 
the  Evangelical  party,  if  I  am  correct  in  what  1 
suppose  to  be  truQ,  have  been  somewhat  indebted  to 
Princeton,  to  Andover,  and  to  New  Haven.  It  is 
natural  to  ask  whether,  whatever  Evangelical  efforts 
may  have  resulted  from  the  labors  of  "  Bishops 
Jarvis,  Provoost,  Bass,  Chase,  Brownell,  Ravens- 
croft,  Smith,  Otey,  and  Lee,"  may  not  be  regarded 
as  somehow  connected  with  a  foreign  influence,  in- 
troduced into  the  Episcopal  church  ?  And  if  it  be 
true  that  "  two-thirds  of  the  clergy"  are  from 
abroad,  am  I  wrong  in  supposing  that  the  Evangel- 
ical spirit  may  have  grown  up  from  the  "  contact 
of  Episcopacy  with  other  denominations  ?"  I  refer 
to  these  facts  not  at  all  to  the  disparagement  or  the 
6* 


66 

disadvantage  of  that  portion  of.  the  Episcopal 
church,  for  I  regard  their  early  training  as  a  thing 
for  which  they  should  unfeignedly  thank  God,  and 
believe  that  their  uncommon  usefulness  in  "  the 
church"  has  been  in  no  small  degree  owing  to  this 
fact.  I  cannot  doubt  that  they  would  have  all  been 
more  useful  if  they  had  not  left  the  churches  of  their 
fathers,  and  that  they  are  doomed  to  be  cramped  in 
their  efforts  to  do  good  as  long  as  they  are  connect- 
ed with  a  religion  of  forms.  Had  they  continued 
to  breathe  the  Puritan  air  of  freedom,  they  would 
have  escaped  the  evils  into  which  they  have  now 
fallen,  in  an  impracticable  and  hopeless  attempt  to 
infuse  the  Evangelical  spirit  into  the  Episcopal 
church.  Will  they  regard  the  remark  as  invidious, 
that  if  the  Evangelical  portion  of  these  accessions 
had  continued  to  breathe  that  pure  air,  the  Episco- 
pal church  would  have  been  now  saved  from  the 
dreaded  apprehension  of  schism,  and  would  have 
remained  calmly  and  coldly  "one?" 

But  what  has  been  the  fact  about  the  "  fostering 
care"  of  the  Episcopal  church  for  the  Evangelical 
spirit  as  it  now  exists  in  her  bosom  ?  1  have  en- 
deavoured to  show  that  till  now  that  spirit  has 
never  found  a  cordial  reception  or  a  permanent 
home  in  the  Episcopal  church.  I  had  ventured  to 
say  in  my  Tract,  (p.  9,)  that  the  existence  of  that 
party  has  not  been  owing  to  '  any  tendency  in  the 
Episcopal  church  to  foster  the  aims  of  that  party.' 
I  have  referred  to  the  manner  in  which,  in  former 
times,  the  Waldenses,  WicklifFe,  Huss,  Jerome, 
Luther,  the  Puritans,  and  the  Methodists,  have  been 
met  in  their  attempts  to  infuse  the  Evangelical  spirit 
into  the  religion  of  forms.  What  now  is  the  truth 
about  the  present  efforts  of  the  Evangelical  party  ? 


67 

Are  they  met  with  a  kind  and  cordial  response  from 
their  brethren?  Are  they- pressed  with  fraternal 
affection  to  their  bosoms,  and  are  their  peculiar 
plans  and  aims  welcomed  in  the  Episcopal  church  1 
Do  the  "  Bishops  and  other  clergy"  regard  their 
efforts  as  being  in  entire  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  their  canons  and  articles  ?  Do  they  consider 
the  objects  which,  as  a  party,  they  are  endeavoring 
to  promote,  as  in  entire  accordance  with  the  Prayer 
Book  ?  Does  the  Evangelical  church  party  find  a 
cordial  co-operation  from  their  brethren  in  their 
-efforts  to  promote  revivals  ;  in  their  prayer  meet- 
ings;  in  <' associations"  or  "protracted  meetings," 
and  in  their  readiness  to  mingle  with  other  denom- 
inations in  societies  for  distributing  the  Bible  and 
Tracts  ?  And  have  the  low  church  party  never  felt 
that  they  were  engaged  in  a  struggle  of  some  kind 
with  a  large  and  very  influential  majority  in  their 
own  church  ?  To  ask  these  questions  is  to  answer 
them.  There  is  no  concealment  of  their  opinions 
•on  the  part  of  the  high  church  portion  of  the  church, 
and  if  we  may  judge  from  their  published  views,  and 
their  open  acts,  there  is  among  them  about  the  same 
disposition  to  "foster"  the  efforts  of  the  low  church 
which  there  was  in  the  time  of  James  and  Charles  I. 
to  patronise  the  Puritans,  or  of  George  of  Hanover, 
to  give  countenance  to  the  Wesley s.  Whether  I 
mn  right  or  wrong  in  the  vievv^  which  I  have  taken, 
of  one  thing  I  am  morally  certain,  that  I  accord 
with  some  twenty  or  more  of  the  prelates  of  the 
Episcopal  church ;  with  the  great  majority  of  their 
-clergy ;  and  with  some  of  their  leading  papers,  in 
the  opini(m  that  the  evangelical  influence  is  of 
foreign  origin,  and  is  to  be  repressed  as  soon  as 
possible. 


68 

Tlie  Evangelical  Spirit  has  neve?'  been  originated 

by  the  Religion  of  Forms. 

(6.)  There  remains  but  one  other  point  to  settle 
tl>e  inquiry,  whether  it  is  the  tendency  of  the  reli- 
gion of  forms  to  originate  or  foster  the  evangelical 
spirit,  or  whether,  if  it  ever  exists,  it  is  a  foreign 
ingredient.  This  is  a  simple  appeal  to  fact,  and  to 
the  efforts  of  evangelical  Episcopalians  themselves. 
The  Papal  communion  has  stood,  substantially  un- 
changed, longer  by  far  than  any  civil  kingdom  has 
done.  It  has  been  throuo;hout  a  relidon  of  fo-rms. 
Has  it  ever  originated  or  "  fostered"  a  spirit  of 
evangelism  1  The  Greek  church  is  also  a  religion 
of  forms  ;  was  blended  long  with  the  church  of 
Rome  ;  in  the  growing  dissensions  which  ultimately 
led  to  a  separation,  it  adherred  still  to  the  same 
forms,  and  now  for  some  eight  hundred  years  has 
illustrated,  by  independent  action,  and  on  the  fair 
fields,  too,  where  religion  once  flourished  in  its 
purity,  the  tendency  of  the  religion  of  forms.  Has 
the  evangelical  spirit  ever  been  originated  and  fos- 
tered in  her  bosom  1  The  Armenian,  the  Nesto» 
rian,  and  the  Coptic  churches,  have  throughout 
their  history,  been  known  substantially  as  religions 
of  form.  They,  too,  through  many  centuries,  and 
in  different  climes,  have  had  every  opportunity  for 
illustrating  the  tendency  of  their  systems,  and  with 
the  same  result.  Have  the  purposes  and  aims 
which  the  Evangelical  Party  are  seeking  to  secure 
in  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  countryy  ever  been 
originated  among  those  churches  ?  Is  it  not  true 
that  whatever  evangelical  influence  there  is  noiu 
either  in  the  Armenian  or  the  Nestorian  churches, 
has  been  by  a  foreign  agency,  and  chiefly  from 
other  churches  than  Episcopal  1    And  is  it  not  true. 


69 

that  the  attempt  to  revive  those  churches,  and  to 
breathe  into  them  the  pure  spirit  of  the  gospel,  has 
encountered  greater  obstructions  from  the  over- 
shadowing of  the  reHgion  of  forms,  than  have  been 
met  with  from  the  degraded  natives  of  Ceylon,  or 
the  wretched  savages  of  the  Sandwich  Islands  ?* 


*  The  manner  in  which  Episcopalians  in  this  country 
regard  the  comparative  value  of  forms,  orders,  and  the  evan- 
gelical spirit  among-  those  churches,  may  be  learned  from 
the  following  rather  caustic  letter  of  the  Nestorian  bishop, 
Mar  Yohannan, 
*'  My  brethren  of  the  Episcopalians  : 

What  evil  or  wicked  thing  have  I  wrought  in  relation  to 
you,  that  some  of  you  should  write  about  me  in  your  News- 
papers, and  scatter  them  through  all  America  ?  I  am  a  poor 
man,  and  ray  nation  is  poor.  I  came  to  thank  Christians  in 
this  country  for  having  helped  us,  and  to  ask  them  to  help 
us  more,  for  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     We  are 

members  one  of  another. Well ;  if  you  had  desired  our 

good,  would  you  not  sometimes  have  inquired  of  me  thus : 
What  is  the  condition  of  your  people  in  that  land  of  heathens? 
Is  there  a  church  there  ?  Are  there  good  men  ?  Are  there 
tokens  of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  What  is  the 
state  of  knowledge  and  instruction?  What  are  the  morals? 
But  from  very  few  of  you  have  I  heard  one  of  these  ques- 
tions. You  ask,  Jiow  many  orders  have  you  1  My  friends, 
forms  are  nothing.     "  Neither  is  circumcision  anything,  nor 

uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature." Shall  we  place  our 

confidence  in  name,  or  forms  ?  No ;  but  in  the  Lamb  of 
God,  who  descended  from  liis  throne  on  high  to  save  that 
which  was  lost.  Observe  and  behold.  The  Creator  of  the 
heights  and  the  depths  did  not  demean  himself  so  loflily  as 
some  denominations,  who  say,  We  are  ;    there  is  no  other 

true  church, Your  church  came  out  from  the  church  of 

the  Pope.     Is  there  not  some  leaven  of  the  Pope  still  re- 

maining  in  many  of  you? What  are  those  pictures  in  some 

of  your  churches  ?     This  is  a  mark  of  the  Pope. Mark 

that  second  commandment, — Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee 
any  likeness  of  anything  in  heaven  above,  nor  in  the  earth 
beneath,  nor  in  the  waters  under  the  earth.     Anotlier  com- 


^.  4IL 


70 

And  is  it  not  true,  moreover,  that  the  Episcopalians 
of  this  country  have  themselves  so  little  confidence 
that  a  religion  of  forms  will  ever  originate  or  foster 
an  evangelical  spirit,  that  their  principal  efforts 
in  the  cause  of  foreign  missions  are  exhausted  in 
those  very  churches,  and  that  their  hopes  of  success 

mandment  of  God  is,  Love  your  neighbours  as  yourselves. — 
But  you  say,  our  church  is  great.  Very  well.  Your 
church  has  become  great,  has  it  ?  Why  ?  That  it  may 
despise  small  churches  ?  Our  Lord  says, — whoever  will  be 
greatest,  let  him  be  servant  of  all.  This  haughtiness  is 
another  mark  of  the  Pope^  who  teaches  that  none  will  be 

saved  who  are  out  of  his  church. Come  let  us  see ;  has 

our  Lord   pronounced   blessings   on  the  proud,  or  on   the 

meek? 1  do  not  say  your  way  [church  polity]  is  not  a 

good  one, — very  good,  if  you  properly  follow  it;  not  in  ex- 
clusiveness    and  ostentation,  saying  we    are    the  only  true 

church ;   nor    in    hypocrisy. 1    love    Episcopalians,   and 

Congregationalists,  and  Presbyterians,  and  Dutchmen,  and 
Lutherans,  and  Methodists,  and  Baptists, — all,  as  brethren 

in  Cltrist. We  open  our  churches  to  their  Priests,  and 

receive  them  as  the  Priests  of  God. Our  Lord  said — who- 
soever receiveth  a  Prophet  in  the  name  of  a  Prophet,  shali 

receive  a  Prophet's  reward. ^Thus  have  we  learned  from 

our  Lord. 

You  are  displeased  with  me,  are  you,  because  I  have  asso- 
ciated with  the  Presbyterians  and  Congregationahsts  ? 

I  do  not  practise  partiality.  Is  it  very  strange,  that  I  asso- 
ciate most  with  Presbyterians  and  Congregationahsts  ?  No. 
They  are  equally  our  brethren;  and  they  have  come  and 
helped  us  in  books  and  teachers,  and  have  done  a  great  and 

good  work  for  our  nation.     Ought  I  to  abandon  them  ? 

It  would  be  a  black  reproach  and  a  great  sin  for  us  thus  to 
abuse  the  good  they  have  done  for  us.  God  v/ould  be  dis- 
pleased with  us  for  such — ingratitude.     But  we  will  never 

be  unmindful  of  their  beneficence. Shall  we  abuse  the 

good  work   which  they  have  done   for   us?     Never.     We 

must  obey  God  ratlier  than  man. We  all  have  one  Lord, 

one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  over  all  and  in  all ;  over  us,  over  you. 


71 

in  foreign  lands  are  dependent,  more  or  less,  on 
their  availing  themselves  of  the  labors  of  Congrega- 
tional and  Presbyterian  missionaries  in  infusing  an 
Evangelical  spirit  into  those  very  communions  ? 
What  hope  do  even  Episcopalians  themselves  enter- 
tain that  the  Evangelical  spirit  will  ever  revive  or 
live  in  the  Armenian,  the  Greek,  the  Nestorian, 
and  the  Coptic  churches  without  foreign  aid? 

I  have  now  stated  all  that  seems  necessary  to 
urge  in  the  defence  and  illustration  of  my  first  posi- 
tion, that  it  has  never  been  possible  permanently  to 
connect  the  religion  of  forms  with  evangelical  reli- 
gion, and  having  noticed  all  that  the  Editors  of  the 
Recorder  have  deemed  it  of  importance  to  say  in  re- 
ply, I  am  quite  willing  to  leave  the  point  for  the  calm 
consideration  of  the  public.  Probably  the  public 
will  judge  that  something  more  is  necessary  to  in- 
validate the  position  than  has  yet  been  advanced. 

The  second  general  position  in  the  argument. 

I  proceed,  therefore,  to  notice  the  reply  which 
has  been  given  to  the  second  general  position 
which  is  laid  down  in  my  Tract.  It  is,  that  the 
low  church  party  "  are  compelled  to  use  a  liturgij 
which  counteracts  the  effect  of  their  teaching.^''  In 
support  of  this,  I  assumed  that  they  are  the  friends 
of  revivals,  of  sabbath  schools,  of  missions  and  of 
efforts  for  the  immediate  conversion  of  sinners.     I 

and  over  them,  and  will  judge  us  all  at  the  last  day ;  and  if 
found  at  his  rigl)t  hand,  will  raise  us  all  to  the  same  heaven. 
We  shall  dwell  in  peace  together  there.  May  the  grace  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  love  of  God  the  Father,  and  the 
communion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be  with  us  all  forever.  Amen. 
Your — unworthy  Christian  brother, 

Mar  Yohannan." 
Novernher,  1842. 


7'2 

took  it  for  granted  that  they  did  not  believe  or  teach 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  or  the  opus 
operatum  of  the  sacraments  in  any  way  ;  that  they 
hold  and  teach  as  sincerely  as  others  do  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  Reformation,  and  are  warm  friends 
of  the  methods  which  have  in  general  been  adopted 
by  all  christians  of  the  present  time,  to  promote  spi- 
ritual reUgion.  I  judged  that  I  was  only  doing 
them  simple  justice  by  supposing  that  these  were 
their  aims,  and  in  these  things  I  supposed  they  were 
particularly  distinguished  from  the  high  church 
party.  The  Prayer  Book,  however,  I  regarded  as 
adapted  to  a  different  age,  and  as  not  contemplating 
such  efforts  as  these.  It  was,  for  the  most  part, 
composed,  arranged  and  published  more  than  two 
hundred  years  ago.  The  state  of  the  world  was 
then  very  different  from  what  it  now  is,  and  the 
Book  has  never  been  so  modified  as  to  be  adapted 
to  these  times,  and  to  contemplate  the  objects  aimed 
at  by  the  low  church  party.  I  supposed  that  the 
Prayer  Book,  however  valuable  it  may  have  been, 
or  may  be  now,  was  adapted  to  the  times  of  Ed- 
ward VI.,  of  Elizabeth,  and  of  James  I.,  when  it  re- 
ceived substantially  the  form  which  it  now  has,  and 
that  the  efforts  which  the  low  church  party  are  now 
making,  in  contradistinction  from  their  high  church 
brethren,  were  not  quite  the  same  which  were 
sought  to  be  promoted  by  the  Episcopal  ministry 
under  those  reigns.  I  specified  the  following  things  : 
that  preaching,  as  contemplated  by  the  Liturgy,  is 
a  thing  of  secondary  importance — the  main  thing 
designed  in  the  service  being  prayer  and  praise ; 
that  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is  the 
clear  doctrine  of  the  Prayer  Book  ;  that  there  is  an 
obligation  on  the  ministry  to  present  those  for  con- 


73 

firmation  who  can  "  say  the  creed,  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  the  ten  commandments,  and  the  parts  of 
the  church  catechism  set  forth  for  that  purpose," 
and  that  the  Prayer  Book  does  not  contemplate 
christian  missions,  revivals  of  religion,  prayer 
meetings,  sabbath  schools,  or  union  with  other  de- 
nominations in  promoting  the  great  objects  of  chris- 
tian benevolence.  These  are  objects  distinctly 
sought  by  the  low  church  party,  in  most  of  which 
they  are  understood  to  differ  from  their  high  church 
brethren,  and  I  endeavored  to  show  that  they  are 
neither  contemplated  nor  fostered  by  the  Prayer 
Book. 

In  prosecuting  this  argument,  I  had  no  book  be- 
fore me  but  the  Prayer  Book.  I  wished  to  look  at 
it  uninfluenced  by  the  views  of  either  party  in  the 
Episcopal  church.  I  was  aware  that  the  low 
church  party  were  as  zealous  in  commending  it  to 
the  attention  of  the  world  as  high  churchmen  ;  and 
1  had  no  reason  to  believe  that  those  whom  I  had 
known  were  inefficient  or  inactive  members  of  the 
"  Bishop  White  Prayer  Book  Society."  It  seemed 
to  me  to  be  fair  to  look  at  the  Book  itself,  and  to 
enquire  whether  its  circulation  would  tend  to  pro- 
mote the  common  aims  of  all  evangelical  christians. 

Sense  in  ivJiich  the  iDord  "  compellecV  was  used. 

I  used  the  word  "  compelled,"  when  I  spoke  of 
the  use  of  the  Book  by  the  low  church  party.  On 
this,  the  Editors  have  been  pleased  to  make  the  fol- 
lowing remarks : — 

"  The  absurdity  of  talking  about  this  compvJsion, 
upon  those  whom  he  has  already  declared  so  earn- 
estly attached  to  this  liturgy  that  they  would  rather 
sacrifice  all  they  have  of  evangelical  truth,  than 
7 


74 

give  it  up,  is  very  manifest  ; — and  so  also  is  the 
equal  absurdity  of  speaking  of  men  as  compelled,  to 
this  or  any  course,  which  has  been  the  matter  of 
their  own  personal,  free  choice  ;— and  that  in  man3/ 
instances,  after  having  had  a  full  experience,  of 
what  Mr.  Barnes  considers  the  greater  freedom  and 
spirituality  of  Presbyterianism. 

"  The  whole  of  tliis  statement  about  compulsory 
Avorship  as  peculiar  to  them,  is  a  mere  misrepresen- 
tation of  facts.  The  public  worship  in  each  in- 
stance is  fixed.  But  the  Episcopal  clergymen  have 
a  liberty  conceded  and  secured  to  them,  and  univer- 
sally practised  by  them,  upon  all  other  occasions, 
of  which  the  Presbyterian  minister  is  perfectly  des- 
titute. And  no  one  feeling  is  more  prominent  in 
the  minds  of  those  Presbyterians  who  have  come 
into  our  ministry,  than  the  new  experience  which 
they  find  of  secure  and  permanent  freedom  under 
the  dominion  of  our  calm,  equal,  and  just  laws." 

I  used  the  word  "  compelled,"  not  as  meaning 
that  they  are  forced  against  their  will,  or  as  imply- 
ing that  there  is  any  restraint  on  them  v/hatever, 
for  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt  their  honest  preference 
for  that  mode  of  v/orship  above  all  others,  and  I 
am  not  ignorant  how  sincerely  Episcopalians  be- 
come attached  to  their  forms  ;  but  I  meant  to  be 
understood  as  saying  that  the  entire  routine  of  ser- 
vice is  prescribed  ;  that  the  Prayer  Book  does  not 
contemplate  any  deviation  from  that  which  is  laid 
down ;  that  the  prayers  are  specified,  the  selections 
of  Scripture  to  be  read  are  mentioned,  the  form  of 
service  at  baptism,  and  in  the  burial  of  the  dead, 
is  all  prescribed  ;  and  that  while  the  minister  who 
officiates,  remains  connected  with  that  church,  he  is 
expected  to  use  all  these  forms.     I  meant  to  say, 


75 

that,  on  the  supposition  that  a  minister  in  that 
church  should  disbelieve  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  and  should  openly  and  constantly 
teach  the  necessity  of  another  kind  of  new  birth,  he 
would  be  "  compelled,"  in  the  sense  of  yielding 
obedience  to  his  ordination  vows,  to  use  that  form 
of  baptism  which  does  teach  the  doctrine  of  baptis- 
mal regeneration  ;  that  he  would  not  be  at  liberty 
to  omit  it  and  use  another  form  ;  and  that  this  is 
one  o^  the  things  "  v/hich  counteracts  the  effects  of 
their  teaching."  And  is  it  not  so?  /s  a  minister 
of  the  Episcopal  church  at  liberty  to  omit  the  form 
prescribed  for  "  the  private  baptism  of  infants,"  or 
the  form  for  "  the  ministration  of  baptism  to  such 
as  are  of  riper  years,"  and  to  substitute  a  form  of 
his  own?  If  so,  the  permission  to  do  it  is  not 
laid  down  in  the  Prayer  Book.  Is  it  ever  done  hy 
a  low  cliurchman  1  Would  he  feel  himself  at  "  lib- 
erty" to  omit  it  ?  If  not,  how  far  was  I  wrong  in 
using  the  word  "  compelled  ?" 

How  to  understand  the  latter  part  of  this  decla- 
ration, that  "^the  Episcopal  clergymen  have  a  lib- 
erty conceded  and  secured  to  them,  and  universally 
practised  by  them,  of  which  the  Presbyterian  min- 
ister is  wholly  destitute,"  I  wot  not.  There  is  but 
one  sense  in  which  it  seems  possible  to  understand 
it,  and  that  is,  that  they  have  a  liberty  of  being 
Calvinists  or  Armenians,  or  embracing  any  inter- 
mediate shades  of  belief,  "  conceded  and  secured  to 
them,  and  universally  practised  by  them,"  of  which 
''  Presbyterians  are  deprived  ;"  v/hich  I  understand 
jrom  Bishop  Burnet  and  others,  to  be  the  case. 
Others  differ  from  Episcopalians  about  the  value  of 
this  kind  of  "  liberty"  in  a  church.  Of  the  fact  that 
Jhere  is  considerable  latitude  of  this  kind  in  the 


76 

Episcopal  church,  we  are  all  well  aware ;  yet  pre- 
cisely where  it  is  "  conceded  and  secured"  in  the 
Prayer  Book  itself,  or  the  canons  of  the  church, 
does  not  appear  to  those  who  are  uninitiated  in  the 
mysteries  of  Episcopacy.  As  to  any  greater  freedom 
in  the  mode  of  public  worship,  it  cannot  be  possible 
that  the  Editors  could  have  meant  that ;  and  what  is 
the  exact  ground  of  triumph  and  exultation  of  those 
"  Presbyterians  who  have  come  into  our  ministry," 
and  the  "  new  experience  which  they  have  found 
of  secure  and  permanent  freedom,"  is  not  yet  re- 
vealed to  us.  I  would  not  misunderstand  this  pas- 
sage, and  put  a  gloss  on  it  which  the  Editors  did 
not  intend  ;  but  can  it  be  true  in  any  other  sense 
than  that  the  Episcopal  church,  as  actually  admin- 
istered, affords  very  large  latitude  in  doctrinal 
views  to  those  who  minister  at  her  altars  ;  and  that 
they  are  not  encumbered  with  any  such  trammels 
on  their  liberty,  as  an  enquiry  into  their  views  of 
the  doctrines  of  religion  would  be? 

The  question  now  is,  whether,  on  the  points 
which  I  specified,  the  low  church  party  are  "  com- 
pelled to  use  a  liturgy  which  counteracts  the  effects 
of  their  teaching  ?" 

The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  tends  to 
counteract  the  teachings  of  the  low  church  parti/. 

I  specified,  first,  the  doctrme  of  baptismal  regen- 
eration, and  endeavoured  to  show  that  this  is  the 
undoubted  teaching  of  the  Prayer  Book.  This  was 
done  by  a  careful  examination  of  the  Book  itself; 
and  the  argument  at  length,  which  it  would  not 
be  proper  to  repeat  here,  and  which  cannot  well 
be  condensed,  may  be  seen  in  my  Tract,  pp. 
.35—43. 


77 

The  answer  of  the  Recorder  to  this  extended  ar- 
gument, is  in  the  words  following  : 

"  Upon  this  subject  we  do  not  mean  to  enter  into 
any  long  explanation  or  defence,  which  Mr.  Barnes 
would  undoubtedly  shut  out  from  all  consideration 
with  the  same  freedom,  and  indifference  to  its  trutii, 
that  he  has  done  here  all  explanations  which  have 
heretofore  been  given,  as  not  seeming  '  to  have  tlie 
least  degree  of  plausibility.'  (p.  35.)  That  bap- 
tismal regeneration  in  some  sense  is  the  doctrine  of 
our  church,  and  of  every  minister  in  the  church, 
we  do  not  deny.  The  Prayer  Book  undoubtedly 
teaches  it ;  and  the  Bible  undoubtedly  teaches  it 
also.  That  either  or  any  of  these,  however,  teach 
it  in  the  sense  which  Mr.  Barnes  means  to  affirm, 
that  is,  spiritual  regeneration  always,  without  re- 
spect to  character  or  qualifications  attending  bap- 
tism, a  reference  to  the  language  of  our  25th  Article 
upon  the  Sacraments,  which  declares  that  '  in  suck 
only  as  worthily  receive  the  same  they  have  a 
wholesome  effect  and  operation, — but  they  that  re- 
ceive them  unworthily,  purchase  to  themselves 
damnation,  as  St.  Paul  saith  ;' — and  to  the  27th 
Article  on  Baptism,  which  declares  that  '  baptism  is 
n  sign  of  regeneration,  or  nevv"-  birth,  whereby,  as 
by  an  instrument,  they  that  receive  baptism  rightly^ 
are  grafted  into  the  church  ;'  &c.,  would  have  been 
sufficient  to  contradict." 

In  connection  with  this,  and  apparently  consti- 
tuting a  part  of  their  argument  on  which  much  re- 
liance is  placed,  the  Editors  appeal  to  the  authority 
of  Dr.  Alexander,  to  the  *'  Liturgy  of  the  Dutch 
church  of  the  Netherlands,"  to  the  "  Hymns  au- 
thorised to  be  used  in  public  worship  by  the  Pres- 
byt-erians,"  to  tlie  "  Dutch  Presbyterian  Catechism," 


78 

to  the  "  Saybrook  Platform,"  to  "  Dr.  Moshiem,  in 
behalf  of  the  Lutheran  church  ;"  to  "Dr.  Clarke,  a 
Methodist  divine,"  and  to  Calvin.  Exactly  how 
this  teaches  us  whether  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration  is,  or  is  not  in  the  Prayer  Book,  and 
whether  the  low  churchman  is  compelled  to  use  a 
Liturgy  which  counteracts  the  effect  of  his  preaching, 
does  not  appear.  That  was  the  point  which  I  laid 
down ;  and  from  that  point  it  is  not  my  intention  to 
be  diverted.  I  have  no  doubt  that  Dr.  Alexander 
is  abundantly  competent  to  defend  the  sentiment 
M^hich  he  expressed  ;  and  the  public  will  not  expect 
me  to  be  drawn  into  an  amateur  argument  now 
about  the  *' Liturgy  of  the  Dutch  church  of  the 
Netherlands,"  or  the  "  Dutch  Presbyterian  Cate- 
chism," or  the  "  Saybrook  Platform."  The  point 
is  about  the  Liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  no 
other. 

There  is  no  attempt  to  meet  the  argument  which 
I  thought  proper  to  urge;  and  if  my  Episcopal 
friends  will  "  receive  it,"  this  is  a  point  on  which 
it  becomes  them  to  lay  out  more  strength  than  has 
been  thought  necessary  by  the  Recorder.  It  is  the 
very  point,  above  all  others,  on  which  Episcopacy 
fails,  and  falters,  and  labors,  and  is  offensive  in  the 
view  of  the  community.  That  community  is  be- 
coming more  and  more  deeply  impressed  with  the 
belief  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Prayer  Book, 
and  more  and  more  firm  in  the  conviction  that  it  is 
not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  that  it  is  a  doc- 
trine most  dangerous  in  its  tendency.  A  frank  ad- 
mission of  their  difficulties  on  this  subject,  and  the 
expression  of  a  wish  which  we  know  many  of  them 
have  cherished,  that  that  feature  of  the  Prayer  Book 


79 

might  be  modified  by  the  General  Convention,  would 
secure  the  sympathy  of  those  out  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  and  do  more  than  perhaps  any  thing  else, 
in  the  present  state  of  things,  to  satisfy  that  com- 
munity that  the  triumph  of  evangeUsm  might  yet 
be  secured  in  the  Episcopal  church.  Instead  of 
that,  in  reply  to  an  argument  which  was  framed 
with  care,  and  ivhich  was  drawn  directly  from  the 
Prayer  Book,  we  have  this  meagre  response — an 
avowal  of  the  doctrine,  and  yet  an  utter  refusal  to 
enter  into  any  "  explanation  or  defence"  which 
would  let  us  know  how  the  doctrine  is  held. 

It  is  now,  however,  avowed  by  the  Editors  of  the 
Recorder,  that  baptismal  regeneration  is  "  in  some 
sense,"  a  doctrine  held  by  the  low  church  party  in 
common  with  their  high  church  brethren — and  it  is 
a  point  of  much  interest  and  importance  to  have  ob- 
tained this  avowal.  "  That  baptismal  regeneration 
in  some  sense  is  the  doctrine  of  our  church  and  of 

EVERY    MINISTER    IN    THE    CHURCH,    106     do     not     deny. 

The  Prayer  Book  undoubtedly  teaches  it ;  and  the 
Bible  undoubtedly  teaches  it  also.^^  From  any  thing 
that  appears  in  this  argument  of  the  Editors  of  the 
Recorder,  this  doctrine  is  held  in  the  plain  and  ob- 
vious sense  in  which  it  is  set  forth  in  the  Prayer 
Book. 

The  exact  "  sense"  however,  in  which  it  is  held 
by  the  Editors  of  the  Episcopal  Recorder,  and  by 
the  party  of  which  they  are  the  organs,  they  have 
not  designed  to  inform  us.  We  have  no  difficulty 
in  ascertaining  in  what  sense  it  is  believed  by  the 
Oxford  writers,  or  by  high  churchmen  generally, 
but  the  particular  point  of  interest  now  is,  in  what 
sense  it  is  maintained  by  the  low  church  party. — 
The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  can  be  held, 


80 

it  seems  to  me,  only  in  one  of  the  following  senses, 
(1.)  That  "baptism  containeth  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  hath  the  germ  of  eternal  life,"  (Dr. 
Pusey's  Sermon  before  the  University  of  Oxford, 
p.  5 ;)  that  it  is  "  founded  on  the  very  notion  that 
the  partaking  of  the  incarnation,  and  the  Christian 
relation  of  sonship  to  God  is  imparted  through  bap- 
tism, and  is  not  imparted  without  it,"  (Tracts  for 
the  Times,  vol.  ii.  p.  31 ;)  that  "  the  pardon  of  sins 
is  the  direct  provision  in  baptism,  and  that  baptism 
gives  life,"  (Dr.  Pusey's  Sermon,  p.  6 ;)  that  "  in 
baptism  the  old  man  is  laid  aside,  the  new  taken  ; 
he  entereth  a  sinner,  he  ariseth  justified,"  (Tracts, 
vol.  ii.  p.  47  ;)  and  that  "  hence  we  are  justified,  or 
both  accounted  and  made  righteous,"  (Tracts, 
vol.  ii.  p.  24.)  This  is  the  doctrine  held  at  Oxford, 
and  which  the  writers  of  the  "  Tracts  for  the 
Times"  contend  with  so  much  zeal  and  plausi- 
bility to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Prayer  Book.  See 
also,  the  "  Churchman,"  for  November  18,  1843. 
(2.)  That  the  sacrament  of  baptism  produces  its 
effect  by  an  opus  operatum,  or  by  an  efhciency  of  its 
own,  always  securing  something  of  the  nature  of 
a  physical  effect  on  the  soul,  when  properly  admin- 
istered, washing  away  sin,  and  rendering  the  soul 
pure.  This,  if  I  understand  it,  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  Papists.  (3.)  That,  though  the  soul  is  renewed 
by  the  direct  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  yet  it  is, 
by  divine  appointment,  an  agency  always  attending 
the  right  administration  of  the  ordinance,  and 
making  the  subject  a  member  of  Christ,  and  an 
heir  of  eternal  life,  or  implanting  grace  in  the  soul, 
which  in  all  cases  needs  only  to  be  cultivated  to 
secure  salvation.  (4.)  That  baptism  is  of  divino 
appointment,   and   that  the   agency   of  the   Holy 


81 

Spirit  may  in  some  cases  renew  the  heart  where  it 
is  administered.  This,  if  I  understand  him,  is  the 
view  of  Dr.  Alexander,  in  the  passage  quoted  by 
the  Editors  of  the  Recorder,  and  I  presume  would 
be  found  to  be  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  "  Liturgy 
of  the  Dutch  church  of  the  Netherlands."  It  may 
be  presumed  to  be  the  doctrine  held  also  by  Pedo- 
baptists  generally,  and  in  fact  by  all  who  hold  to 
the  doctrine  of  baptism  at  all.  (5.)  That  the  "  re- 
generation" effected  in  baptism  is  not  a  spiritual 
renovation,  or  properly  a  change  of  heart,  but  only 
a  change  of  state  ;  an  introduction  into  the  church, 
or  a  mere  recognition  of  the  relation  to  the  church 
in  which  the  child  was  born,  but  without  supposing 
that  there  is  necessarily  or  certainly  any  agency 
exerted  on  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  sub- 
ject of  baptism,  according  to  this  view,  is  to  be  re- 
garded and  treated  as  sustaining  an  interesting  re- 
lation to  the  church,  but  as  unconverted  until  he 
gives  evidence  of  regeneration  by  the  appropriate 
proofs  of  piety.  Then,  and  not  before,  he  is  to  be 
recognised  as  a  member  of  the  church  in  the  proper 
sense,  and  entitled  to  all  its  privileges. 

Now,  as  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder  have  not 
told  us  in  which  of  these  senses  "baptismal  regen- 
eration is  the  doctrine  of  our  church  and  of  every 
minister  in  the  church,"  there  may  be  some  danger 
of  doing  injustice  to  them  by  attributing  any  one 
of  these  opinions  to  them.  That  the  views  of  the 
Tractarians  are  not  theirs,  we  may  safely  infer 
from  their  uniform  opposition  to  Oxfordism.  As 
certainly  may  we  infer  that  they  do  not  hold  to 
the  opus  operatum  of  the  Papists.  In  the  Prayer 
Book,  however,  which,  in  the  sense  above  explained, 
they  are  "  compelled"  to  use,  there  is  no  ambiguity 


82 

in  regard  to  the  doctrine  there  taught.  The  doc- 
trines of  the  Prayer  Book  are  these  : 

(1.)  That  the  change  which  is  wrought  at  baptism 
is  hy  the  Holy  Ghost,  It  is  not  a  mere  recognition 
of  a  state  ah'eady  existing  ;  it  is  not  that  the  water 
of  baptism  has  an  intrinsic  efficacy  to  produce  the 
purifying  of  the  heart  by  an  opus  operatum  ;  it  is 
that  whatever  change  then  wrought  is  by  the  agen- 
cy of  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  Dearly  beloved,  none  can 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  except  he  be  regen- 
erated, and  born  anew  of  water  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  "  We  beseech  thee,  for  thine  infinite  mer- 
cies, that  thou  wilt  mercifully  look  upon  this  child, 
wash  him,  and  sanctif}^  him  ivith  the  Holy  Ghost." 
"  Give  thy  Holy  Spirit  to  this  infant,  that  he  may 
be  born  again,  and  made  an  heir  of  everlasting  sal- 
vation." "  We  yield  the  hearty  thanks,  most  mer- 
ciful Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate 
this  infant  ivith  thy  Holy  Spirit"  The  "  ministra- 
tion for  the  Private  and  Public  Baptism  of  Infants, 
to  be  used  in  the  church,"  pp.  143 — 148.  No  doc- 
trine could  be  plainer  than  that  ivhatever  change  is 
wrought  at  baptism,  it  is  hy 'the  Holy  Ghost, 

(2.)  This  is  a  change,  according  to  the  Prayer 
Book,  which  always  occurs  when  baptism  is  prop- 
erly administered.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  as  "  taught 
by  Dr.  Alexander,"  and  as  it  may  be  found  in  "  the 
Liturgy  of  the  Dutch  church  of  the  Netherlands," 
and  in  the  "  Dutch  Presbyterian  catechism,"  that 
this  change  inay  occur,  but  that  it  always  does 
occur.  Dr.  Alexander  teaches,  in  the  passage  quoted 
by  the  Recorder,  that  a  child  may  be  renewed  when 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  administered,  and  that 
parents,  "  when  about  to  dedicate  their  children  to 
God  in   holy  baptism,  should  earnestly  pray  that 


83 

they  may  be  baptised  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that 
while  their  bodies  are  washed  in  the  emblematical 
laver  of  regeneration,  their  souls  may  experience 
the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Jesus  ;"  the  Episcopal  Prayer  Book 
teaches  that  this  always  occurs.  There  is  no  mere 
expression  of  a  belief  that  it  may  be  done.  There 
is  no  exception  made  in  regard  to  any  who  are  bap- 
tised. In  each  and  every  case,  there  is  precisely 
the  same  prayer  offered  before  baptism,  that  God 
would  give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  the  infant,  "  that  he 
may  be  born  again,  and  be  made  an  heir  of  ever- 
lasting salvation  ;"  and  in  each  and  every  case  after 
bajptism,  the  same  thanks  are  returned  "  that  it  hath 
pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  thy  Holy 
Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adop- 
tion, and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy  holy  church." 
If  the  directions  of  the  Prayer  Book  have  been 
attended  to,  this  same  form  of  prayer  and  thanks- 
giving has  been  used  in  relation  to  every  child  that 
has  been  baptised  since  the  book  was  adopted  ;  and 
has  been  used,  and  must  be  used,  by  every  Episco- 
pal minister  in  this  land,  be  he  a  high  or  a  low 
churchman.  Whatever  the  book  teaches,  then,  about 
the  change  which  it  calls  "  regeneration,"  it  is  a 
change  which  always  occurs.  This  is  held,  I 
presume,  by  low  churchmen,  as  well  as  by  their 
high  church  brethren.  It  is  impossible  not  to  hold 
it,  and  maintain  a  belief  in  the  Prayer  Book. 

(3.)  It  is  not  a  mere  change  of  s/^a^e  which  is  im- 
plied in  this  change,  according  to  the  Prayer  Book. 
It  is  not  a  mere  transition  from  the  world  to  the 
visible  church.  It  is  not  a  mere  profession  of  reli- 
gion. It  cannot  be  said,  in  order  to  meet  the  diffi- 
culty which   low  churchman  are  "  compelled"  to 


84 

meet  with,  that  the  word  "regeneration"  has 
changed  its  signification  since  the  book  was  made ; 
or  that  they  who  framed  the  book  meant  merely  to 
designate  a  change  of  state.  There  is  no  evidence 
of  any  such  change  of  the  meaning  of  the  language 
which  has  yet  been  adduced,  and  it  is  apparent  on 
the  face  of  the  hook  itself,  that  no  such  change  has 
occurred.  The  book  being  the  interpreter,  there  is 
implied  all  that  is  ever  implied  by  the  word  regene- 
ration in  the  Bible  or  in  common  usage. — This  is 
clear  from  the  following  considerations  : — (a.)  The 
very  term  "  spiritual  regeneration"  is  used  as  be- 
ing that  which  is  prayed  for  and  expected  in  bap- 
tism. "  We  call  upon  thee  for  this  Infant,  that  he, 
coming  to  thy  holy  Baptism,  may  receive  remission 
of  sins,*  BY  SPIRITUAL  REGENERATION."  What  then 
is  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Editors  of  the  Recor- 
der when  they  deny  that  the  Prayer  Book  teach- 
es the  "  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  in  the 
sense  which  Mr.  Barnes  means  to  athrm,  that  is  spi- 
ritual regeneration^^ -the  very  term  used  in  the  Prayer 
Book  '.'  (6)  The  Prayer  Book  teaches  that  every  thing 
which  is  commonly  supposed  to  denote  a  change  of 
heart,  or  a  spiritual  renovation,  is  imparted  at  bap- 
tism. It  is  not  a  mere  change  of  state,  or  a  trans- 
ition from  the  world  to  the  visible  church ;  but  the 
infant  is  by  baptism  "  made  a  member  of  Christ,  a 
child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Catechism.  Thanks  are  returned  that  he 
is  made  "  a  child  of  God  by  adoption,''''  and  prayer 

*  How  much  does  this  differ  from  Oxfbrdism?  "  Baptism 
containeth  the  remission  of  sins,  and  hath  the  germ  of  spiri- 
tual Ufa."  "  The  pardon  of  sins  is  the  direct  provision  of 
baptism."  «'  Baptism  gives  hfe."  Dr.  Pusey.  See  "  The 
mysteries  opened,"  by  Rev.  John  S.  Stone,  D.  D.  pp.  82,  83. 


85 

is  offered,  not  that  he  may  he  converted  afterwards, 
but  that  he  "  being  dead  unto  sin,  and  living  unto 
righteousness,  and  being  buried  with  Christ  in  his 
death,  may  utterly  abolish  the  whole  body  of  sin  ; 
and  that  as  he  is  made  Partaker  of  the  death  of  thy 
Son  he  may  also  be  Partaker  of  his  Resurrection."* 
The  "Ministration  of  the  private  baptism  of  chil- 
dren." Now  these  are  the  very  terms  which  are 
used  in  the  scriptures,  and  adopted  by  the  great 
mass  of  christians  jTrom  the  scriptures,  to  denote  the 
spiritual  change  wrought  in  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  at  the  new  birth,  and  neither  in  the  scrip- 
tures, nor  in  the  common  usages  of  christians,  nor 
in  the  systematic  writings  of  theologians,  are  there 
any  other  terms  which  more  clearly  express  the 
idea. 

For  reasons  such  as  these,  it  seems  quite  clear  to 
those  out  of  the  church,  that  the  Prayer  Book  has 
"  defined  its  own  position"  on  this  subject  with  a 
distinctness  which  cannot  be  mistaken,  and  that  the 
framers  of  the  "  incomparable  Liturgy"  meant  to 
teach  that  the  change  effected  by  baptism  is  a 
change  produced  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  is  a  change 
which  is  always  effected,  and  is  a  change  of  a  spi- 
ritual character. — It  is  remarkable  that  the  Editors 
of  the  Recorder  should  not  have  attempted  to  set 


*How  much  does  f^is  differ  from  Oxfordism  ?  "This  ex- 
position" (that  which  makes  John  i.  12,  13,  refer  to  baptism 
as  the  instrument  of  the  birth  there  mentioned,)  "is  founded 
on  the  very  notion  that  the  partaking  of  the  incarnation,  and 
the  christian  relation  of  sonship  to  God,  is  imparted  through 
baptism."  Baptism  is  "  that  mystery  whereby  we  are  made 
2)artakers  of  the  incarnation,  being  baptised  into  one  body, 
the  body  of  our  incarnate  Lord."  Tracts  for  the  Times,  vol. 
ii.  31.44. 

8 


86 

aside  the  argument  in  the  Tract  under  their  review 
by  which  some  of  the  reasons  for  this  opinion  were 
set  forth.  The  public  will  probably  demand  that 
the  views  of  low  churchmen  on  this  vital  point 
should  be  stated  more  explicitly,  and  that  it  should 
be  shown  that  the  reasoning  which  seems  so  obvious 
about  the  meaning  of  the  Prayer  Book  may  be  set 
aside. 

I  by  no  means  charge  low  churchmen  with 
teaching  in  their  public  ministrations,  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration.  I  do  not  believe  that 
they  do.  I  do  not  deny  that  the  teaching  of  many, 
or  for  aught  I  know  to  the  contrary,  all  in  that  par- 
ty may  be  as  thorough  on  the  subject  of  the  neces- 
sity of  the  new  birth,  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  producing  it,  as  can  be  found  in  other  dc- 
nominatioms.  There  is  an  impropriety  in  referring 
in  public  discussions  to  living  men,  and  I  will, 
therefore  refer  only  to  the  dead.  A  near  neigh- 
bour, and  a  frequent  hearer,  of  the  late  Drs.  Bedell 
and  John  A.  Clark,  and  long  a  personal  friend  of 
the  latter,  I  esteem  it  a  privilege  to  bear  my  testi- 
mony to  the  unshrinking  fidelity,  the  great  clearness, 
the  unwavering  steadiness  of  argument,  and 
the  fervor  of  affectionate  appeal,  with  which  they 
urged  on  their  hearers  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  the 
danger  of  the  sinner,  the  impossibility  of  being 
saved  by  any  outward  works  or  forms,  and  the  in- 
dispensible  necessity  of  being  born  again.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  others  in  this  city  and  elsewhere 
evince  the  same  fidelity,  and  were  it  proper  I  would 
refer  to  living  men  here  and  abroad  whose  names 
will  be  treasured  up  with  the  same  fond  remem- 
brance, and  for  the  same  thing,  when  they  are  re- 
moved to  heaven.     Serus  in  coelum  redeant. 


87 

None  of  the  difficulties  which  I  have  ventured  to 
suggest  in  regard  to  Episcopacy,  relate  to  this  point. 
The  difficulty  pertains  to  another  matter.  It  is  in 
reference  to  the  consistency  of  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration  as,  to  use  the  language  of  the 
Recorder,  "  the  Prayer  Book  undoubtedly  teaches 
it,"  with  this  kind  of  preaching.  I  presume  that 
low  churchmen  see  some  way  of  explaining  this, 
which  others  do  not.  I  have  not  charged  one  of 
them  with  "  hypocrisy,"  as  the  Recorder  alleges.* 
I  have  not  accused  one  of  them,  living  or  dead, 
with  insincerity.  I  have  certainly  no  more  reason 
to  doubt  that  they  are  sincere  and  honest  men,  than 
I  have  to  doubt  that  I  am  myself;  and  I  doubt  not 
that  they  are  as  conscientiously  attached  to  their 
own  church,  as  I  am  to  what  I  esteem — ah  imo 
pectore — as  a  better  faith.  But  if  it  would  not  be 
interpreted  as  charging  them  with  insincerity,  I 
would  respectfully  ask  a  conscientious  low  church- 
man who  believes  in  the  necessity  of  the  new  birth, 
how  he  can  continue  to  use  a  form  of  baptism 
framed  as  that  is  in  the  Prayer  Book  ?  I  would  ask 
again,  what  must  be  the  practical  effect  of  the  use 
of  that  form  on  his  public  teaching  1  Let  him  not 
take  it  unkindly,  and  let  not  the  community  judge 
it  harshly — for  it  is  fair  to  enquire  what  Episco- 
])acy  is,  and  this  is  just  the  point  in  debate — if  I 
ask,  how  one  who  believes  that  by  baptism  there  is 

*  "For  t'/ie  cXexgy  themselves,  we  need  say  nothing.  Mr. 
jJarnes  has  in  so  viany  other  instances  in  this  book  proclaimed 
their  absolute  iiypocrisy,  that  this  .idditional  instance  with 
which  he  charg'es  tliem,  of  consenting  to  use  a  Liturgy 
which  is  directly  opposed  to  all  their  preaching,  and  yet  pro- 
cessing to  love  and  admire  it  at  the  same  time,  can  hardly 
jtaake  their  case  worse  iu  his  representation." 


not,  as  the  Recorder  teaches,  "  spiritual  regenera- 
tion always  ;"  who  teaches  that  there  is  a  neces- 
sity of  a  renovation  of  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  that  no  certain  dependence  can  be  placed  on 
baptism  however  administered  to  secure  this, 
can,  on  the  same  day,  and  on  all  occasions 
when  an  infant  is  baptised,  use  this  language; 
"  We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful 
Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate 
this  infant  with  thy  Holy  Spirit  1"  Another  ques- 
tion here.  The  Recorder  teaches  us,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  confirmation,  that  "  the  universal  practice 
of  the  church  is,  to  leave  in  the  hands  of  the  min- 
ister of  the  parish,  the  sole  power  of  judgment  of 
the  characters  of  the  persons  to  be  confirmed," 
and  so  far  as  I  can  understand  the  Editors,  they 
claim  that  the  minister  of  the  parish  is  at  liberty 
not  to  present  a  candidate,  even  though  he  has  been 
taught  to  "  say  the  creed,  the  Lord's  prayer,  the 
ten  commandments,  and  such  parts  of  the  church 
catechism  as  are  set  forth  for  that  purpose,"  and 
that  he  has  a  right  to  insist  on  the  evidence  of  a 
renovated  heart  as  a  qualification.  The  low 
churchman  would  demand,  I  presume,  substantially 
the  same  evidence  which  would  be  required  by  a 
Presbyterian,  a  Baptist,  or  a  Methodist.  He  would 
require  evidence  of  a  "  spiritual  regeneration ;" 
that  is,  something  different  from  what  is  implied 
in  "  baptismal  regeneration"  as  he  understands  it ; 
something  which  is  not  necessarily  secured  by  bap- 
tism. He  goes  through  a  long  course  of  counsel 
to  prepare  the  candidate  for  confirmation,  with  this 
view.  The  nature  of  regeneration  as  a  distinct 
thing  from  baptism  is  set  forth,  and  the  usual  evi- 
dences of  piety  are  insisted  on.     Having  done  this, 


89 

as  a  part  of  the  preparation  for  confirmation,  (See 
"the  form  for  the  baptism  of  children,")  it  is  neces- 
sary still  to  ascertain  whether  he  can  "  say  the 
creed,  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  is  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  other 
parts  of  the  church  Catechism  set  forth  for  that  pur- 
pose." In  that  church  Catechism,  the  following 
questions  and  answers  occur.  "  Qvestioii. — What  is 
your  name  1  Answer. — N.,  or  M.  Question. — 
Who  gave  you  this  name  ?  A7isiver. — My  sponsors 
in  baptism,  ivherein  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ, 
the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven. ^''  I  charge  no  low  churchman,  I  repeat, 
with  hypocrisy.  I  believe  they  have  some  way  of 
explaining  this  which  I  do  not  understand.  But  is 
the  question  an  unfair  one  to  ask  how  can  a  man 
teach  this,  who  does  not  believe  that  in  any  proper 
sense,  baptism  confers  "  spiritual  regeneration," 
and  all  the  tendency  of  whose  preaching  and  teach- 
ing has  been,  that  something  more  is  necessary  in 
order  to  be  "  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  to 
"  be  made  a  member  of  Christ,  a  child  of  God,  and 
an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven?"  There 
may  be  a  way  in  which  all  these  things  may  be 
wholly  consistent,  but  that  way  has  not  yet  been 
explained.  To  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder  it  may 
be  a  matter  of  little  importance  to  tell  a  Presbyte- 
rian hoiD. 

The  requirements  in  regard  to  Confirmation  coun- 
teract the  teaching  of  the  low  church  party. 

I  specified,  as  a  second  difficulty  in  reference  to 
the  etforts  of  the  Evangelical  party,  the  prescrip- 
tions of  the  Prayer  Book  respecting  confirmation, 
and  endeavored  to  demonstrate  from  that  book,  that 


90 

It  contemplated  that  a  child  which  had  been  pro- 
perly baptised,  shall  be  "  brought  to  the  bishop  to 
be  confirmed  by  him  so  soon  as  he  can  say  the 
creed,  the  Lord's  prayer,  and  the  ten  command- 
ments, and  is  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  other 
parts  of  the  church  catechism  for  that  purpose." 
The  argument  which  1  instituted  was  designed  to 
show  that,  according  to  the  Prayer  Book,  it  is  sup- 
posed that  the  child  is  "  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  is  "  made  a  child  of  God,"  and  is  "  incor- 
porated into  the  holy  church"  by  baptism ;  that 
grace  is  always  implanted  in  connection  with  that 
ordinance,  and  that  if  that  grace  is  properly  culti- 
vated, he  is  to  be  brought,  at  the  proper  age,  to  the 
bishop  to  take  upon  himself  the  vows  made  by  his 
"  sponsors"  at  baptism.  I  endeavored  to  show  that 
this  is  a  consequent  of  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  or  is  in  the  line  of  the  arrangements 
by  which  it  is  supposed  in  the  Prayer  Book  that 
the  child  is  to  be  saved.  I  am  confirmed  in  this 
view  by  the  statement  made  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Alex. 
V.  Griswold,  D.  D.,  the  late  venerable  prelate  of 
the  Episcopal  church  in  New  England,  (Sermons, 
1830,)  and  by  the  Treatise,  "  What  is  Christianity, 
by  Thomas  Vowler  Short,  Bishop  of  Sodor  and 
Man,"  men  who  would  be  regarded  by  the  low 
church  party  as  proper  expounders  of  the  meaning 
of  the  Liturgy.  I  referred,  in  proof  of  the  position 
which  I  laid  down,  to  a  train  of  reasoning  from  a 
similar  case,  pursued  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng,  in  re- 
ference to  the  ordination  of  Mr.  Carey,  showing 
that  the  Bishop  was  bound  by  something  of  the 
nature  of  a  compact  to  ordain  one  who  had  com- 
plied with  all  the  outward  requisitions  of  the  canons. 
This  reasoning  of  Dr.  Tyng  seemed  to  me  to  prove 


91 

%vith  equal  clearness,  that  the  "  minister  of  the 
})arish"  is  bound  to  present  for  confirmation  those 
who  have  complied  with  the  direction  to  be  able  to 
say  the  creed,  &c.  I  admitted  that  the  low  church 
party  do  in  fact  pursue  a  different  course,  and  that 
they  demand  evidence  of  conversion  in  order  to 
confirmation,  as  really  as  the  evangelical  ministers 
of  other  denominations  require  such  evidence  in 
order  to  an  admission  to  the  privileges  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  I  said  also,  "  we  are  willing  to  admit 
that  there  must  be  some  discretion  allowed  to  the 
officiating  minister  or  rector  of  a  parish  in  regard 
to  those  who  are  to  be  presented,  for  the  fair  rules 
of  interpretation  seem  to  demand  that  he  shall  not 
be  required  to  present  those  who  are  open  infidels, 
or  who  are  grossly  immoral."  pp.  44,  45. 

The  Editors  have  not  thought  it  of  importance 
to  notice  my  reasoning  from  the  Prayer  Book,  from 
the  argument  of  Dr.  Tyng,  or  the  admission  which 
I  made  in  regard  to  the  discretionary  power  of  the 
"  minister  of  the  parish,"  and  I  shall,  therefore, 
allow  the  reasoning  which  I  offered  in  the  case  to 
pass  for  what  it  is  worth.  If  it  had  any  strength 
when  I  urged  it,  it  has  the  same  now,  and  whatever 
may  be  the  practice  in  the  Episcopal  church,  it  may 
serve  somewhat  to  show  what  the  theory  is  as  it  is 
laid  down  in  the  Prayer  Book. 

The  only  reply  of  the  Editors  is  in  the  following 
words :  "  We  would  respectfully  refer  him  to  the 
rubric  in  the  Prayer  Book,  which  he  professes  to 
have  read,  at  the  end  of  the  Catechism,  which  says, 
'whenever  the  Bishop  shall  give  knowledge  for 
children  to  be  brought  unto  him  for  their  confirma- 
tion, the  minister  of  every  parish,  shall  either  bring 
or  send  in  writing  with  his  hand  subscribed  there- 


92 

unto,  the  names  of  all  such  persons  within  Ins 
parish,  as  he  shall  think  Jit  to  be  presented  to  the 
Bishop  to  be  confirmed.'^  We  would  also  refer  him 
to  Canon  26,  which  enacts,  '  It  shall  be  the  duty  of 
ministers  to  pre})are  young  persons  and  others  for 
the  Holy  Ordinance  of  Coniirmation.  And  he  shall 
be  ready  to  present  for  confirmation  such  persons 
as  he  shall  think  properly  qualified  ;  and  shall  de- 
liver to  the  Bishop  a  list  of  the  names  of  those  con- 
firmed.' Under  these  laws  the  universal  practice 
of  the  Church,  is  to  leave  in  the  hands  of  the 
minister  of  the  parish,  the  sole  power  of  judgment 
of  the  character  of  persons  to  be  confirmed,  or  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Table.  No  Bishop  in  the 
Church  would  attempt  the  confirmation  of  an  indi- 
vidual, thus  judged  and  rejected  by  pastoral  au- 
thority, unless  manifest  and  extreme  injustice  had 
been  done.  And  hov/  could  this  right  or  respon- 
sibility in  other  pastors,  be  more  accurately  defined 
or  secured  V 

On  the  argument  which  I  constructed  on  this 
subject,  which  was  presented  in  no  unkind  spi- 
rit or  words,  and  which  could  have  been  easily 
met  if  it  were  unsound,  the  Editors  are  pleased 
to  indulge  themselves  in  the  following  singular  re- 
marks : — 

"  With  what  honesty  then  can  Mr.  Barnes  occu- 
py eleven  pages  of  his  book,  in  the  deliberate  fram- 
ing of  a  contrary  statement,  when  a  simple  refer- 
ence to  our  known  laws  would  have  exhibited  to 
him  the  truth  at  oncel  There  is  here  exhibited  just 
as  there  is  through  the  whole  book,  the  determina- 
tion to  vilify  and  destroy,  not  the  party  avowedly 
the  object,  but  the  Church  to  which  they  belong. 
There  is  no  '  inquiry'  into  facts,  from  one  end  of 


93 

the  publication  to  the  other,  hut  a  succession  of  un- 
founded assertions,  and  impidations  equally  desti- 
tute of  truth  and  proofs 

To  this,  of  course,  1  shall  not  be  expected  to  reply. 
The  argument  of  the  Editors  in  the  case  is,  "  that 
the  minister  of  the  parish  shall  present  such  per- 
sons as  he  shall  think  fit  to  he  presented  to  the 
Bishop  to  be  confirmed.''^  "  He  shall  be  ready  to 
present  for  confirmation  such  persons  as  he  shall 
think  j)roperly  qualified.'^''  The  question  then  is, 
what  is  the  "  fitness"  which  the  minister  of  the  pa- 
rish, according  to  the  Prayer  Book,  is  allowed  to 
require?  What  is  the  limit  of  the  "proper  qualifica- 
tions" for  that  rite  1  It  is  not  what  is  proper  ac- 
cording to  the  New  Testament ;  or  what  the  min- 
ister himself  might  judge  ;  but  what  is  it  according 
to  the  published  standards  of  the  Episcopal  church, 
what  did  the  framers  of  the  Prayer  Book  contem- 
plate ?  Is  the  minister  of  the  parish  to  be  allowed 
absolute  discretion  in  the  case  1  Has  the  candidate 
no  rights,  as  is  contended  by  Dr.  Tyng  respecting 
the  candidate  for  ordination  1  Is  the  minister  of  the 
parish  at  liberty  to  adopt  any  thing  which  he  may 
choose  as  constituting  the  ^'-fitness''"'  for  confirma- 
tion '/  Suppose  he  were  to  be  a  "  Calvinist  of  the 
highest  order,"  and  were  to  insist,  as  a  necessary 
qualification,  that  the  candidate  should  assent  to  all 
the  articles  of  that  faith.  Suppose  he  were  to  em- 
brace some  fanatical  views  of  conversion  of  the 
wildest  kind,  and  should  insist  that  tho§e  constitu- 
ted the  "  fitness"  for  confirmation.  Suppose  he 
were  to  insist  on  his  joining  a  temperance  society, 
or  his  expressing  his  abhorrence  of  slavery ;  would 
tbese  be  proper  things  for  him  to  demand  as 
qualifications  for  confirmation?     Suppose  it  should 


94 

happen  to  occur  to  him  to  demand  assent  to  all  the 
articles  of  belief  contained  in  the  "  Liturgy  of  the 
Dutch  church  of  the  Netherlands,"  would  he  have 
a  right  to  require  this  ? — Why  not,  just  as  much  as 
to  insist  on  compliance  with  his  own  views  of  re- 
generation, if  those  views  were  not  what  is  laid 
down  in  the  Prayer  Book  ?  Where  will  he  lind  in 
that  book  that  he  has  a  right  to  demand  the  one 
more  than  the  other  ?  Probably  most  persons  would 
answer  these  questions  in  one  way,  and  by  precisely 
the  same  rule.  It  would  be  by  turning  at  once  to 
the  Prayer  Book,  and  by  asking  whether  these 
things  are  laid  down  as  constituting  the  "  fitness" 
for  the  rite,  and  by  ascertaining  whether  "  discre- 
tion," is  given  to  the  "  minister  of  the  parish"  to 
make  these  the  conditions  of  confirmation. 

The  low  church  minister  claims  that  he  has  the 
right  to  withhold  one  from  confirmation  who  does  not 
give  him  satisfactory  evidence  that  he  is  converted 
according  to  his  views  of  conversion.  This  being 
his  own  rule  of  judging  of  what  is  piety  in  the  case, 
in  the  exercise  of  the  "  liberty  which  Episcopal 
clergymen  have  conceded  and  secured  to  them,"  he 
claims  the  right  to  withhold  any  one,  and  every  one 
under  his  ministry,  from  confirmation,  who  does  not 
give  him  evidence  that  he  has  experienced  some- 
thino;  more  than  is  understood  by  his  high  church 
brethren  to  be  secured  by  baptismal  regeneration. 
In  this .  he  is  undoubtedly  right  so  far  as  the  New 
Testament  is  concerned,  but  is  thia  Episcopacy  as 
it  is  in  the  Prayer  Book?  Has  he  any  more  right 
to  insist  on  this,  in  opposition  to  the  views  and  prac- 
tices of  his  high  church  brethren,  than  he  would 
have  to  demand  assent  to  the  higher  articles  of  Gal- 
vanism, or  to  a  subscription  to  a  temperance  pledge  '? 


95 

The  answer  to  all  this  seems  still  to  be  plain.  We 
turn  at  once  to  the  Prayer  Book,  and  there  is  nothing 
of  it  there.  No  such  liberty  is  conceded  to  him,  and 
as  far  as  the  uninitiated  can  understand  language, 
it  is  not  contemplated  by  the  Prayer  Book.  I'hc 
successive  steps  in  the  process,  according  to  the 
Prayer  Book  are  these  : — 

1.  The  unconscious  child,  through  his  sponsors, 
by  what  in  the  legal  profession  would  be  called  a 
fiction  of  law,  "  renounces  the  devil  and  his  works, 
the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with  all 
covetous  desires  of  the  same  ;"  professes  to  "  believe 
all  the  articles  of  the  christian  faith  as  contained  in 
the  apostles  creed,"  promises  "  obediently  to  keep 
God's  holy  will  and  commandments,  and  walk  in 
the  same  all  the  days  of  his  life."  This  is  a  prom- 
ise supposed  to  be  made  h\j  the  child  as  if  then  a 
moral  ao;ent  and  a  believer  in  the  truth  of  religion. 

2.  0\\  the  ground  of  this  faith  the  infant  is  bap- 
tised, and  is  made  "  regenerate  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  an  inher- 
itor of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  is  incorporated 
into  the  holy  church." 

3.  The  sponsors,  not  the  parents,  are  to  "  take 
care  that  this  child  be  brought  to  the  bishop  to  be 
confirmed  by  him,  so  soon  as  he  can  say  the  creed, 
the  Lord's  prayer,  and  the  ten  commandments,  and 
is  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  other  parts  of  the 
church  catechism  set  forth  for  that  purpose."  This 
is  all  the  counsel  which  theij  receive  as  to  the  "  fit- 
ness" or  "  qualifications"  for  confirmation. 

4.  At  a  suitable  time,  the  child  is  brought  to  the 
Bishop,  presented  by  the  "  minister  of  the  parish," 
to  take  upon  himself  the  vows  which  were  made  in 
his  name  at  baptism,  and  then  the   sponsors  are 


96 

supposed  to  be  released.  "  Then  shall  the  Bishop 
say,  Do  ye  here  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  of 
this  congregation,  renew  the  solemn  promise  and 
vow  that  ye  made,  or  that  was  made  in  your  name 
at  your  baptism,  ratifying  and  confirming  the  same; 
and  acknowledging  yourselves  bound  to  believe  and 
do  all  those  things  which  ye  then  undertook,  or 
which  your  sponsors  then  undertook  for  you  ?  And 
every  one  shall  audibly  answer,  I  do.''''  Here  is  no 
new  thing  ;  no  profession  of  any  change  of  heart ; 
of  having  undergone  any  spiritual  change  since  the 
baptism,  nor  is  any  evidence  required  of  a  new  birth 
further  than  was  supposed  to  occur  at  baptism.  All 
that  is  done  is  to  confirm  and  ratify  what,  by  an 
unauthorized  fiction,  the  child  was  understood  then 
to  believe  and  to  profess,  and  the  delay  has  been, 
not  that  he  might  be  converted,  but  that  he  might 
be  "  instructed,"  and  might  come  to  suitable  age  to 
take  these  vows  upon  himself. 

5.  In  all  this,  there  is  no  discretion  allowed  by 
the  Prayer  Book  to  the  "  minister  of  the  parish"  to 
interpose  any  thing  new.  There  is  no  "  freedom 
conceded  and  secured"  by  the  book,  whatever  there 
may  be  in  practice,  to  insist  on  any  new  test  or 
qualification,  or  any  evidence  of  "  conversion"  ac- 
cording to  the  peculiar  views  which  he  may  have. 

If  this  view  of  the  process  by  which  one  born  in 
the  Episcopal  church  is  to  be  "  confirmed"  is  erro- 
neous, it  would  be  very  easy  to  show  it.  I  admit 
that  this  is  not  the  course  pursued  by  the  low 
church  party.  I  admit  that,  in  general,  they  de- 
mand evidence  of  conversion  as  really  as  any  Pres- 
byterian or  Methodist  would — and  herein  lies  my 
argument,  that  their  practice  is  not  sanctioned  by 


97 

the  Prayer  Book,  and  is  not,  on  fair  rules  of  inter- 
preting language,  what  that  book  contemplated. 

The  Burial  Service  counteracts  the  teaching  of  the 
Evangelical  party. 

These  were  the  points  to  which  I  referred  in 
my  Tract  as  counteracting  the  efforts  of  low 
churchmen  in  the  necessary  use  of  the  Prayer 
Book.  To  these  I  now  add,  in  order  to  a  complete 
statement  of  the  entire  effect  of  the  system  in  the 
Prayer  Book,  the  necessity  of  using  the  service  ap- 
pointed for  the  burial  of  the  dead.  I  am  not  in- 
sensible to  the  beauty  of  that  service,  nor  to  its 
general  appropriateness,  for  the  burial  of  true 
Christians.  It  is  only  as  a  part  of  a  system ;  as 
connected  with  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion, and  as  identified  with  the  views  of  confirma- 
tion laid  down  in  the  Liturgy,  that  it  is  proper  here 
to  examine  it.  The  argument  is,  simply,  that  if  it 
be  the  doctrine  of  the  Prayer  Book,  that  those  who 
are  baptised  are  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  are  to  be  confirmed  in  the  manner  laid  down, 
and  it  be  true  that,  according  to  the  Prayer  Book, 
those  who  are  thus  baptised  and  who  do  not  lead 
scandalous  lives,  are  to  be  buried  with  the  assured 
prospect  of  a  glorious  resurrection,  it  is  a  constant 
influence  operating  in  the  church  to  counteract  the 
effects  of  the  teaching  of  the  Evangelical  party.  It 
tends  to  beget  and  cherish  false  hopes  ;  to  per- 
petuate views  of  the  nature  of  religion  abhorrent 
alike  to  the  New  Testament  and  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Evangelical  party.  In  regard  to  this  service, 
which  is  so  much  praised,  and  in  the  main  so  de- 
servedly admired  and  valued  by  Episcopalians,  I 
would  observe, 

9 


98 

.  (1.)  That  the  low  church  party,  in  common 
with  high  churchmen,  are  "  compelled"  to  use  it 
on  all  occasions  except  the  three  which  will  be 
soon  specified.  Thus  the  direction  in  the  rubric 
is  as  positive  respecting  this,  as  it  is  in  respect  to 
the  other  services  required  in  the  Prayer  Book.  No 
"  discretion"  is  allowed  as  to  its  omission,  or  the 
omission  of  any  part  of  it,  except  in  the  choice  be- 
tween two  short  prayers  at  the  close  of  the  service, 
in  which  there  is  no  ground  for  preference  as  to 
the  point  now  before  us.  Thus  it  is  directed,  "  The 
minister  meeting  the  corpse  at  the  entrance  of  the 
church  yard,  shall  say,  or  sing  ;"  "  After  they  are 
come  into  the  church,  shall  be  said  or  sung  the  fol- 
lowing anthem :"  "Then  shall  follow  the  lesson ;" 
"  Then,  while  the  earth  shall  be  cast  upon  the  body 
by  some  standing  by,  the  minister  shall  say."  It 
is  also  true,  as  far  as  I  have  any  knowledge,  that 
the  low  churchman  never  has  any  reluctance  to  use 
this  whole  form  at  funerals. 

(2.)  The  service  is  framed  on  the  supposition  of 
the  salvation  of  all  those  over  whom  it  is  to  be 
read.  This  is  evident  because,  (a)  those  only  are 
excluded  from  it  of  whom  there  can  be  no  reason- 
able hope  of  salvation  ;  the  "  unbaptised,  those  who 
die  excommunicate,  and  those  who  have  laid  vio- 
lent hands  on  themselves ;"  and,  (h)  the  expres- 
sions which  are  to  be  used  on  the  occasion  are  such 
as  obviously  and  naturally  imply  this  belief,  and, 
indeed,  are  so  couched  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that 
such  is  the  meaning.  Thus  in  every  case,  it  is 
said  that  the  "  minister,"  while  "  the  earth  shall  be 
cast  upon  the  body,"  "  shall  say,"  "  Forasmuch  as 
it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God,  in  his  wise  Provi- 
dence, to  take  out  of  this  world  the  soul  of  our  de- 


99 

ceased  brother,  we  therefore  commit  his  body  to  the 
ground ;  earth  to  earth,  ashes  to  ashes,  dust  to 
dust ;  looking  for  the  general  resurrection  in  the 
last  day,  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  co?ne,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''''  Then  immediately  "  shall 
be  said  or  sung"  "  I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven 
saying  unto  me,  Write,  from  henceforth  blessed  arc 
the  dead  who  die  in  the  Lord."  {c)  That  this  is 
the  true  interpretation  is  apparent,  because  it  is  for- 
bidden to  read  this  service  over  the  unbaptised, 
the  excommunicated,  and  suicides.  If  the  expres- 
sions here  used  were  of  a  general  character,  and 
were  designed  only  to  speak  of  the  resurrection  in 
general,  and  of  the  hope  of  the  life  to  come,  without 
any  reference  to  the  one  who  is  buried,  it  would 
be  as  proper  to  use  them  at  the  funeral  of  an  unbap- 
tised person,  or  a  suicide,  as  any  other  person.  It 
is  only  because  they  are  supposed  to  be  appropriate 
to  the  individual,  and  they  are  directed  in  his  case 
to  be  used,  and  are  forbidden  in  the  case  of  others. 
(3.)  The  effect  of  this  service  is  to  lead  all  to 
suppose  that  zy  they  are  baptised,  and  are  not  ex- 
communicated, and  do  not  commit  suicide,  they  are 
safe.  They  may  then  have  this  service  appropri- 
ately read  over  their  graves,  and  lie  down  in  the 
hope  of  heaven.  They  have  been  "  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Ghost"  at  baptism  ;  they  have  never  been 
"  excommunicated"  from  the  true  church  ;  and  they 
have  committed  no  such  crime  as  to  exclude  from 
the  hope  of  heaven ;  and  they  will  be  permitted 
to  sleep  in  consecrated  ground.  They  are  grouped 
with  those  who  are  to  be  saved,  and  having  been 
baptised,  confirmed,  and  kept  in  the  church,  and 
appropriately  buried,  they  are  now  united  with 
others  "  looking  for  the  life  of  the  world  to  come." 


100 

(4.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  who  are  grouped 
together  as  unv.'orthy  of  christian  burial,  and  .the 
reason  why  they  are  so.  This  service  is  not  to  be 
used  for  any  unbaptised  person,  nor  for  the  excom- 
municated^ nor  for  suicides.  These  three  crimes  or 
offences  are  grouped  together  as  being,  in  the  matter 
under  consideration,  on  a  level  ;  equally  excluding 
from  the  hope  of  heaven,  and  from  the  privileges 
of  christian  burial ;  and  they  are  the  only  offences 
that  are  regarded  as  of  sufficient  importance  to 
exclude  from  such  a  burial.  The  "  unbaptised" 
and  suicides  are  to  He  side  by  side,  without  the 
limits  of  a  christian  burial-place ;  and  over  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  is  the  minister  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  if  he  has  been  Episcopally  ordained,  to  per- 
form any  religious  service  whatever,  according  to 
the  Prayer  Book.  The  only  reason  for  this  must 
be  that  this  service  considers  all  whom  it  consigns 
to  the  grave,  as  regenerate  persons  ;  and  that  ac- 
cording to  its  judgment,  the  unbaptised  person  is 
as  certainly  unregenerate  as  the  excommunicated, 
or  the  suicide.  "  No  matter  of  what  crimes  a  man 
may  have  been  guilty,  if  he  has  not  committed 
suicide,  if  he  has  not  been  excommuuicated,  if  he 
has  been  only  Episcopally  baptised ;  though  he 
may  have  lived  a  drunkard's  life,  and  may  fill  a 
drunkard's  grave  ;  though  he  may  have  wronged 
t  e  widow  and  the  fatherless  ;  though  he  may  have 
plotted  treason,  and  imbrued  his  hands  in  blood, 
still  he  is  thus  to  be  buried,  '  looking  for  the  Hfe 
of  the  world  to  come,'  "*  because  in  infancy  he  was 
baptised,  and  has  neither  been  excommunicated, 
nor  laid  violent  hands  on  himself.  Nor  does  it 
appear  that  the  minister  has  any  discretionary 
*  New  Englander,  vol.  ii.  p.  277. 


101 

power  in  extreme  cases.  The  corpse  may  be  that 
of  a  professed  Atheist,  or  of  as  profane  and  profli- 
gate a  man  as  ever  died  without  repentance  ;  still, 
if  the  baptism  of  the  deceased  be  recorded,  and  there 
is  no  record  of  excommunication,  the  "  minister, 
meeting  the  corpse  at  the  entrance  of  the  church- 
yard, and  going  before  it  either  into  the  church,  or 
towards  the  grave,  shall  say  or  sing"  the  burial 
service,  as  if  he  were  a  Baxter  or  a  Leighton.* 

(5.)  The  practical  operation  of  this  service  must 
be  to  "  counteract  the  effect  of  the  teaching"  of  the 
low  church  party.     It  is  an  appropriate  sequel  of 

*  The  exact  practical  effect  of  this  ordinance  will  be  better 
understood,  if  it  be  remembered  that,  according  to  one  of  the 
most  able  historians  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country, 
and  one  of  its  most  eminent  divines,  there  is  no  power  of 
"  excommunication"  now  residing  in  the  church.  I  refer  to 
the  authority  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks.     Thus  he  says  : — 

"  Who  ever  heard  of  the  excommunication  of  a  layman  by 
our  branch  of  the  Apostolic  church  ?  Neither  the  General 
Convention,  nor  any  State  Convention,  have  ever  provided 
any  '  rules  or  process'  for  excommunication.  There  is  not 
a  clergyman  in  the  church,  who,  if  he  were  desirous  to  ex- 
communicate an  offender,  would  know  how  to  take  the  very 
first  step  in  the  process.  It  certainly  is  not  to  be  done  ac- 
cording to  his  mere  whim ;  and  if  it  were  so  done,  it  is  as 
certainly  invalid.  Shall  then  the  Presbyter  alone  do  it,  or 
shall  it  be  done  by  his  Bishop,  or  by  a  conclave  of  Bishops, 
or  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters,  or  by  a  State  Convention  includ- 
ing  the  laity,  or  by  the  General  Convention  including  the 
laity  again  ?  No  man  can  answer  it,  for  there  is  no  rule 
on  the  subject."  "  There  are  very  few  of  the  dioceses  in 
which  any  provision  is  made  by  canon  for  investigating  or 
trying  the  case  of  a  Zayman."-i-Constitution  and  Canons  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  the  United  States,  pp. 
359,  360.  362.  The  practical  effect  of  the  rule  then  must 
be,  that  only  the  "  unbaptised,"  and  those  *'  who  lay  violent 
hands  on  themselves,"  are  excluded  from  the  privilege  of 
christian  burial  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church. 

9* 


102 

the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  and  of  the 
rules  for  confirmation  ;  and,  despite  all  the  teaching 
to  the  contrary,  it  is  'a  constant  force'  operating 
to  keep  up  the  impression  that  they  who  are  thus 
baptised  and  honorably  buried,  who  have  neither 
been  excommunicated,  and  who  are  not  self-murder- 
ers, are  safe.  This  effect  is  candidly  admitted  by 
Archbishop  Whately,  a  man,  who,  from  his  rank, 
talents,  and  candor,  has  by  his  concessions,  given 
more  trouble  to  "  churchmen"  than  all  those  who, 
out  of  the  limits  of  "  the  church"  have  presumed 
to  examine  its  institutions.  Thus  he  says,  "I  have 
known  a  person,  in  speaking  of  a  deceased  neigh- 
bor, whose  character  had  been  irreligious  and  pro- 
fligate, remark,  how  great  a  comfort  it  was  to  hear 
the  words  of  the  funeral  service  read  over  her, 
'  because,  poor  woman,  she  had  been  such  a  bad 
liver.'  I  have  heard  of  an  instance  again  of  a 
superstition,  probably  before  unsuspected,  being  ac- 
cidentally brought  to  light,  by  the  minister's  having 
forbidden  a  particular  corpse  to  be  brought  into  the 
church,  because  the  person  had  never  frequented  it 
when  alive  ;  the  consequence  of  which  was,  that 
many  old  people  began  immediately  to  frequent  the 
church,  who  had  before  been  in  the  habit  of  absent- 
ing themselves." — Essays  on  Romanism,  ch.  i.  §  9.  v. 
As  a  simple  but  very  important  question,  it  might 
be  asked  of  every  conscientious  low  churchman, 
whether  he  never  feels  any  difficulty  or  any  doubt 
about  the  propriety  of  reading  this  whole  service 
over  those  over  whom  by  the  rubric  he  is  required 
to  "  say  or  sing"  it  ? 

In  my  Tract,  having  shown  that  there  were 
things  in  the  Prayer  Book  which  low  churchmen 
as  well  as  the  high   churchmen  were  required  to 


103 

use,  the  tendency  of  which  was  to  "  counteract 
the  effect  of  their  teaching,"  I  proceeded  to  a  third 
general  consideration,  which  was,  that  there  "  are 
no  arrangements  or  provisions  in  the  Liturgy  for 
promoting  their  pecuhar  and  distinctive  efforts,  or 
which  contemplate  such  efforts." 

The  third  general  position  in  the  argument  : 
3Iissions. 

The  first  thing  which  I  specified  in  which  there 
are  no  arrangements  or  provisions  in  the  Liturgy 
for  promoting  the  j:)eculiar  and  distinctive  efforts  of 
the  low  church  party,  was  that  Christian  missions 
to  the  heathen  are  not  contemplated  by  the  Prayer 
Book,  pp.  50,  51.  The  argument  was,  that  the  use 
of  the  Liturgy  is  unfavorable  to  the  work  of  mis- 
sions—  requiring  responses,  and  changes  of  pos- 
ture and  of  vestments,  and  is  adapted  rather  to  an 
already  organized  congregation  than  to  the  work 
of  collecting  such  a  congregation  from  among  the 
heathen  ;  that  there  arc  no  references  to  such 
efforts  in  the  Prayer  Book,  no  prayers  for  the  suc- 
cess of  missions,  no  allusions  to  churches  gathered 
■among  the  heathen,  and  no  petitions  that  the  mis- 
sionary in  heathen  lands  may  be  sustained  in  his 
trials,  and  encouraged  in  his  work,  I  then  went 
into  an  extensive  e.xamination  of  the  prayers  and 
collects  appointed  to  be  used,  and  found  in  all 
the  Prayer  Book,  besides  the  incessant  repeating  of 
the  Lord's  prayer,  but  one  single  petition  to  be 
offered  in  the  ordinary  public  service  of  this  kind, 
to  wit,  "  We  humbly  beseech  thee  for  all  sorts  and 
conditions  of  men,  that  thou  wouldst  be  pleased  to 
make  thy  ways  known  unto  them,  thy  saving  health 
unto  all  nations,"     Besides   this,  there  is   in   the 


104 

Prayer  Book,  a  solitary  petition,  to  be  used  once  in 
a  year,  that  God  would  "  have  mercy  upon  all 
Jews,  Turks,  infidels,  and  heretics."  This  com- 
prehensive petition,  to  be  offered  in  the  Episcopal 
churches,  not  on  the  Sabbath,  but  on  "  Good  Fri- 
day," is  the  solitary  prayer  which  the  Fathers  of 
the  Episcopal  church  have  thought  it  of  importance 
to  have  offered  that  the  Saviour's  last  command 
may  be  carried  into  effect  by  the  church.  To  this 
argument,  the  Editors  have  been  pleased  to  furnish 
the  following  brief  reply  : 

"  Upon  the  character  of  the  Prayer  Book  itself 
in  this  relation,  it  is  hardly  necessary  for  us  to 
speak.  Episcopalians  are  perfectly  informed,  that 
they  can  never  meet  in  worship  according  to  their 
Liturgy,  without  uniting  in  many  prayers  for  the 
universal  extension  of  the  Gospel  throughout  the 
world.  And  perhaps  there  is  no  feature  in  the 
Prayer  Book  more  distinct  and  evident  than  the 
very  great  proportion  of  its  intercessory  language, 
and  especially  for  spiritual  benefits  to  mankind." 

How  easy  and  how  courteous  it  would  have  been 
for  them  to  have  referred  to  some  at  least  of  those 
"  many  prayers  for  the  universal  extension  of  the 
Gospel  throughout  the  world,"  which  Episcopalians 
are  so  "  perfectly  informed"  are  found  in  their 
"  Liturgy."  If  there  are  such  prayers,  they  are 
not  apparent  to  non-episcopal  eyes. — The  Editoi's 
then  make  the  following  remarks  on  the  general 
subject  of  Episcopal  missions  : — 

"  The  whole  testimony  of  facts  as  they  are  be- 
fore the  view  of  the  Christian  world,  are  directly 
against  him.  What  are  all  the  missions  of  the  Mo- 
ravian Churches,  but  a  complete  and  thorough  tes- 
timony to   the   adaptation   of    Episcopacy  and  a 


105 

Liturgy  to  the  extension  of  the  Gospel  among  the 
heathen  ?  And  as  Mr.  Barnes'  whole  argument  is 
founded  upon  the  abstract  principles  of  Episcopacy 
and  a  Form  of  Prayer,  they  constitute  just  as  com- 
plete a  reply  as  any  facts  in  our  own  church  par- 
ticularly. But  we  will  not  rest  upon  these.  Does 
not  Mr.  Barnes  know  that  the  Church  of  England 
was  engaged  in  missions  to  the  heathen  more  than 
one  hundred  years  before  the  Church  of  Scotland 
started  in  the  work  1  The  Society  for  promoting 
Christian  knowledge  was  established  in  1690.  The 
Scottish  Missionary  Society  in  1796.  Is  Mr.  Barnes 
ignorant  that  the  most  successful  of  all  modern  mis- 
sions have  thus  far  been  under  Episcopal  minis- 
trations l  Does  he  know  nothing  of  the  eminent 
spread  of  the  Gospel  in  the  last  century  in  the  Pen- 
insula and  islands  of  Southern  India  under  the 
Christian  Knowledge  Society  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land ?  In  the  year  1750  the  converts  from  hea- 
thenism in  the  single  station  of  Tranquebar  alone 
amounted  to  eight  thousand.  The  Society  for  pro- 
pagating the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts  was  formed  in 
1701,  and  its  labors  were  successfully  directed 
to  the  Indians  of  North  America.  The  Church 
Missionary  Society  which  was  established  in  1801, 
has  been  perhaps  the  most  successful  instrument  of 
establishing  the  Gospel  among  the  heathen  of  all  in 
modern  eiforts.  Does  Mr.  Barnes  know  nothing 
of  Africa,  of  Regentstown  ;  of  India,  of  Chunar, 
and  Krishnaghur  ]  Has  he  no  knowledge  of  Bu- 
chanan, of  Martyn,  of  lieber,  of  Johnson,  of  Bowley, 
of  Wilson  ?  Plave  his  ov/n  people  never  been  roused 
or  melted  by  the  sweet  hymn  of  one  of  these  de- 
spised Episcopalians.  How  could  a  man  who  holds 
his  station  in  the  community,  and  has  his  opportu- 


106 

nities  of  information,  so  blind  himself  with  preju- 
dice, as  to  say,  p.  54,  in  the  face  of  an  army  of 
facts  like  these  which  were  familiar  to  the  least  in- 
formed of  modern  Christians,  that,  '  a  missionary 
society  or  missionary  effort,  whether  in  connec- 
tion with  other  Christians^  or  by  themselves,  is  a 
thing  unknown  to  the  constitution  of  the  Episcopal- 
Church  V  " 

To  the  general  truth  of  these  statements  respect- 
ing the  missions  of  Episcopalians,  I  have  no  disposi- 
tion to  reply.  I  would  not  detract  in  the  least  de- 
gree from  any  claim  which  they  may  derive  from  self- 
denying  efforts,  to  the  gratitude  of  mankind.  Some 
of  the  names  here  referred  to  are  embalmed  in  the 
affectionate  remembrance  of  mankind,  and  will  be 
loved  and  honored  as  long  as  piety  and  holy  zeal 
are  respected  among  men.  There  has  been  no  con- 
queror at  whose  grave  I  should  feel  so  deep  emo- 
tions as  at  the  grave  of  Martyn,  and  perhaps  no 
man  has  lived  since  the  time  of  Paul  who  has 
earned  for  himself  a  brighter  or  more  imperishable 
crown. — I  might  doubt,  indeed,  if  this  statement 
were  examined  with  carefulness,  whether  the  "  most 
successful  of  all  modern  missions,  thus  far,  have  been 
under  Episcopal  ministrations."  I  might  ask  for 
the  precise  specifications  to  show  where  Episcopal 
missions  have  been  more  "  successful"  than  the 
missions  of  the  American  Board  in  the  Sandwich 
Islands,  or  in  Ceylon,  of  the  Baptist  in  Burmah,  or 
of  the  London  Missionary  Society  in  the  South  Sea 
Islands.  I  might  ask  whether  these  very  "success- 
ful missions"  under  "  Episcopal  ministrations"  refer 
to  those  which  have  been  conducted  by  the  "  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  church"  or  to  the  "  Moravians," 
and  whether,  therefore,  they  prove  any  thing   ia 


107 

reference  to  the  tendency  of  the  Prayer  Book  to 
foster  and  sustain  missions  ?  And  perhaps  I  might 
ask,  without  impropriety,  how  it  happens  that  in 
this  enumeration  the  reference  is  solely  to  missions 
conducted  by  those  across  the  waters,  and  not  to 
the  Episcopal  church  in  the  United  States  '.'  But  ail 
this  would  be  aside  from  my  argument,  from  which 
I  do  not  intend  to  be  diverted.* 

The  question  is,  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the 
position  which  I  laid  down  ?  How  does  it  prove 
that  "  missions  to  the  heathen  are  contemplated  by 
the  Prayer  Book  '?"  How  does  it  demonstrate  that 
"  a  Missionary  Society,  or  a  missionary  effort, 
whether  in  connection  with  other  christians,  or  by 
themselves,  is  a  thing  contemplated  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Episcopal  church  V  How  does  it  prove 
that  there  are  references  to  such  efforts  in  the 
Prayer  Book  ;  that  there  are  prayers  for  the  suc- 


*  The  sjnrit  and  aims  with  which  Episcopal  missions  arc 
conducted,  and  the  entire  unwilling-ncss  of  Episcopahans  to 
be  understood  as  co-operating  with  other  denominations, 
may  be  understood  from  tlie  following  extract  from  the  Re- 
port of  the  Medical  Missionary  Society  of  China.  Macao, 
1843.  The  Rev.  P.  Parker,  M.  D.,  in  his  report  of  his 
efforts  made  during-  Jiis  visit  to  America,  England,  and 
France,  at  page  33,  says,  "  It  was  indeed  my  special  aim, 
during  great  part  of  my  visit  in  London,  to  secure,  in  the 
first  instance,  the  interests  and  patronage  of  that  class  (nobil- 
ity and  Bishops)  which  may  readily  be  induced  to  lead  in  a 
good  cause,  but  will  hardly  be  willing  to  follow.  An  objec- 
tion however,  exists,  in  the  separation  of  the  established 
Church  of  England  from  those  not  included  within  its  pale, 
which  it  was  found  difficult  to  obviate,  and  indeed  the  bishop 
of  London  very*  frankly,  yet  with  much  courtes}'-,  remarked 
that  '  much  as  he  approved  of  the  object,  and  the  means  used 
to  attain  it,  he  could  not  in  any  way  co-operate  in  such  la- 
bors with  those  who  dissent  from  the  established  church.'  " 


108 

cess  of  missions ;  that  there  are  allusions  to 
churches  gathered  among  the  heathen ;  and  that 
there  are  petitions  that  the  m.issionary  in  heathen 
lands  may  be  sustained  in  his  toils,  and  encouraged 
in  his  work  I  How  does  all  this  prove  that  the  Lit- 
urgy accords  with  the  spirit  of  this  age,  or  with  the 
aims  of  the  Evangelical  party?  I  will  ask  one 
other  question  here,  whatever  interpretation  may 
be  put  upon  it.  Does  the  Prayer  Book,  in  this 
respect,  meet  the  aspirations  and  desires  of  the  truly 
pious  members  of  the  Episcopal  church,  in  regard 
to  missions  1  Do  they  find  there  all  that  they  wish 
to  express  before  the  altars  of  their  God  and  Sa- 
viour, in  reference  to  the  salvation  of  the  world  ] 
Have  they  no  other  wishes  for  the  success  of  the 
gospel  among  the  heathen,  than  those  which  find  a 
response  in  the  service  appointed  in  the  Liturgy  ? 
Do  they  never  offer  proportionably  more  frequent, 
more  fervent,  and  more  prolonged  prayei^  for  these 
great  objects  in  their  closets,  and  in  prayer  meet- 
ings, than  they  find  there  1  And  if  there  were 
more  frequent  petitions  of  this  kind  in  the  Liturgy, 
would  they  not  meet  a  want  of  their  souls  which  is 
now  sadly  felt  by  multitudes  in  the  Episcopal 
churches  ? 

I  find  no  fault  here  with  the  Liturgy  itself,  and 
cast  no  blame  on  its  framers.  It  is,  in  this  respect, 
such  as  was  adapted  to  the  age  in  which  it  was 
framed  ;  and  is  such  as  Calvin,  and  Beza,  and  Me- 
lancthon,  and  Knox,  and  Bucer  would  have  made, 
but  it  is  not  adapted  to  this  age.  Those  men  were 
engaged  in  another  work  to  which  God  then  called 
them,  besides  sending  missions  to  the  heathen  ;  and 
they  did  their  work  well.  But  why  should  their 
plans  and  aims  be  supposed  to  be  all  that  would  be 


109 

required  in  another  age,  and  when  God  calls  his 
churches  to  another  work  ?  How  could  any  "  pet- 
rified wisdom"  of  that  age,  whether  at  Geneva,  at 
Canterbury,  or  in  Edinburgh,  be  precisely  what 
would  be  needed  when  the  church  and  the  world 
had  moved  on  some  three  hundred  years  l  The 
Editors  of  the  Recorder  have  made  a  frank  confes- 
sion in  relation  to  another  point,  which  I  have  been 
greatly  surprised  was  not  as  frankly  made  on  this. 
It  is  found  under  No.  14  of  their  specifications  of 
*'  inconsistencies  and  contradictions"  in  my  Tract. 
They  say  of  the  Liturgy,  "  The  blessed  martyrs 
and  divines  who  compiled  it  were  not  gifted  with 
prophecy."  The  remark  is  applied  by  them  to 
show  that  they  could  not  have  "  conceived  in  ad- 
vance, the  multiplied  and  multiform  sects  into 
which  the  then  nascent  Presbyterianism  was  to  rend 
and  divide  the  professed  body  of  Christ."  How 
obvious,  and  how  kind  to  their  memory  it  would 
have  been,  to  have  conceded  that  they  could  not 
foresee  the  glorious  efforts  which  would  be  called 
forth  in  the  nineteenth  century,  to  spread  the  gospel 
around  the  world  ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  might  be 
"  expedient,"  as  Bishop  Griswold  has  said  on 
another  subject,  so  to  alter  the  book  as  to  adapt  it 
to  this  age  ?  Can  any  one  believe  that  if  Matthew 
Parker,  Richard  Cox,  Dr.  May,  Dr.  Bill,  James 
Pilkington,  Thomas  Smith,  David  Whitehead,  and 
Edmund  Grindell,  who  were  appointed  by  Eliza- 
beth to  revise  king  Edward's  Liturgies,  lived  in 
these  times,  and  partook  of  the  spirit  of  the  low 
church  party  in  this  country,  there  would  have  been 
as  few  references  to  missionary  operations,  and  as 
entire  a  want  of  any  arrangement  for  missions 
among  the  heathen,  as  we  now  find  in  that  book  1 
10 


110 

The  sum  of  my  rem?crks  on  this  part  of  the  Prayer 
Book  is,  that  the  references  to  the  spread  of  the 
gospel,  in  the  devotional  parts  of  the  book,  are  not 
such  as  the  piety  of  this  age  should  breathe  forth 
for  the  salvation  of  the  world. 

Revivals  of  Religion  are  not  contemplated  by  the 
Prayer  Book. 

I  specified  as  a  second  thing  in  which  there  are 
"  no  arrangements  or  provisions  in  the  Liturgy  for 
promoting  their  peculiar  and  distinctive  efforts," 
that  revivals  of  religion  are  not  contemplated  by 
the  Prayer  Book.  p.  54.  I  assumed  that  the  low 
church  party  are,  in  general,  friendly  to  what  are 
commonly  called  "  revivals  of  religion,"  though  I 
know  not  that  they  would  prefer  to  use  that  term. 
To  the  thing  itself,  referring  to  the  extraordinary 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  conversion  of 
souls,  when  many  under  the  means  of  grace  are 
called  simultaneously  or  in  a  brief  period  into  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  I  believed  them,  as  I  still  be- 
lieve them,  to  be  friendly.  I  had  known  not  a  few 
of  them  who  labored  with  a  zeal  and  fidelity  for  so 
glorious  an  effect  of  the  gospel,  quite  equal  to  any 
who  are  connected  with  other  denominations,  and  I 
doubt  not  that  their  zeal  is  as  pure.  But  the  ques- 
tion is,  whether  the  peculiar  efforts  which  are  ne- 
cessary in  such  a  work  are  contemplated  by  the 
Prayer  Book  ;  whether  the  use  of  that  Book  is  well 
adapted  to  such  a  scene ;  whether  the  framers  of 
the  Liturgy  contemplated  such  scenes  or  had  them 
in  their  eye ;  and  whether  in  the  regular  use  of  that 
Book,  with  no  other  method  of  devotion,  such  scenes 
would  be  likely  to  occur.  With  this  view,  I  ex- 
amined  the  Book,  and   endeavored   to  show  that 


Ill 

Uierc  is  nothing  tlierc  which  is  adapted  to  the  thrill- 
ing scenes  of  such  a  work  of  grace.  I  found  no 
prayers  that  careless  sinners  may  be  awakened, 
and  that  inquirers  may  be  guided  to  Christ,  which 
would  express  the  warm  feelings  of  a  church  at 
such  a  time.  I  supposed,  also,  that  it  was  a  com- 
mon practice  for  low  churchmen  at  such  times  to 
have  "  prayer  meetings,"  where  extemporary 
prayers  are  offered,  and  to  adopt  other  measures 
such  as  have  been  found  useful  among  other  Chris- 
tians, which  are  not  specified  in  the  Prayer  Book, 
and  the  natural  interpretation  put  on  these  facts  out 
of  "  the  church"  is,  that  they  are  resorted  to  be- 
cause the  arrangements  in  the  Prayer  Book  are  not 
all  which  are  demanded  to  promote  revivals  of  re- 
ligion. The  interpretation  which,  I  believe,  is  put 
upon  these  facts  by  the  high  church  party  is,  that 
the  peculiar  efforts  of  the  low  church  party  in  pro- 
moting revivals  are  not  contemplated  by  the 
Liturgy,  and  that  they  are  striving  to  imitate  other 
denominations  rather  than  to  carry  out  the  objects 
contemplated  by  "  the  church."  In  this  interpre- 
tation, it  seemed  to  me,  the  high  church  were  un- 
doubtedly right. 

In  reply  to  the  reasoning  which  I  pursued  on 
this  point,  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder,  make  the 
following  remarks : 

"  In  reply  to  such  perfectly  unfounded  statements^ 
we  hardly  know  what  to  say, — the  charge  seems 
so  VOLUNTARILY  UNTRUE  from  a  man  who  professes 
to  have  examined  this  book.  We  should  feel  com- 
pelled to  say,  that  the  excellencies  of  the  Prayer 
Book  were  in  the  very  facts  which  Mr.  Barnes  de- 
nies. It  is  filled  with  the  very  petitions  which  he 
asserts  are  not  to  be  found  there.     He  elsewhere 


112 

says,  p.  33,  of  the  *  extemporary  prayers'  of  Epis- 
copalians which  he  has  heard,  that  ♦  their  prayers 
are  models  of  a  simple,  pure,  and  holy  worship.' 
They  may  well  be  so,  for  they  are  uniformly  framed 
of  the  very  expressions,  and  conveyed  in  tlie  very 
ideas  which  have  been  acquired  from  the  Liturgy. 
As  for  the  adaptation  of  this  Liturgy  to  revivals  of 
religion,  we  have  seen  it  used  day  after  day,  for 
weeks  and  months,  in  just  such  works  of  grace, 
and  every  day  the  interest  in  it  became  deeper,  and 
the  love  of  it  the  more  intense.  The  peculiar  ap- 
plication of  it  to  such  awakened  feeling  is  very  re- 
markable. The  single  prayer  of  the  Litany,  *  O 
Lamb  of  God,  who  takest  away  the  sins  of  the 
world,  have  mercy  upon  us,  grant  us  thy  peace,' 
seems  in  itself  to  outweigh  in  worth,  all  the  Ibrmal, 
theoretical,  discursive  prayers,  we  have  ever  heard 
from  Presbyterians." 

They  then  refer  to  works  of  grace  which  have 
occurred  in  this  city,  and  ask,  "  in  what  congrega- 
tions has  religion  flourished  more"  than  in  those 
where  the  Liturgy  is  used  ?  "  Where  have  larger 
additions  been  annually  made  to  the  Lord's  flock?" 
To  all  that  can  be  said  on  the  point  on  which  these 
questions  bear,  I  accord  my  humble  testimony  that 
it  is  true,  and  I  shall  go  into  no  comparison  in  this 
respect,  between  the  Evangelical  Episcopal  churches 
and  those  of  other  denominations.  I  trust  I  shall 
ever  rejoice  in  all  the  success  with  which  God  shall 
ever  crown  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  by  whom- 
soever dispensed.  But  the  point  before  us  is,  what 
is  the  relation  between  such  works  of  grace  as  are 
called  "  revivals  of  religion"  and  the  Prayer  Book? 
On  this  point,  a  few  questions  will  embrace  all  I 
desire  to  say. 


113 

(1.)  Is  such  a  thing  as  a  "  prayer  meeting"  con- 
tem plated  at  all  in  the  Prayer  Book  1  Is  there  any 
service  contemplated  except  what  is  to  occur  on  the 
Sabbath,  or  on  a  saints'  day,  or  some  other  of  the  holy 
days  ?  Is  there  such  a  thing  referred  to  as  a  volun- 
tary meeting  together  of  Christians,  v/ith  or  with- 
out a  clergyman,  when  the  service  of  the  church  is 
not  to  be  usedl  If  there  is,  it  would  be  easy  to 
specify  the  place.  I  have  not  been  so  happy  as  to 
find  it,  and  have  not  been  referred  to  it  by  the 
Editors  of  the  Recorder.  I  believe  high  church 
Episcopalians  who,  it  seems  to  me,  are  quite  as 
thorough  students  of  the  Prayer  Book  as  their 
brethren,  with  great  uniformity,  deny  that  any  such 
meetings  are  designed  by  the  book. 

(2.)  Do  those  who  attend  prayer  meetings  in 
the  low  church  party,  never  introduce  anything 
which  is  not  in  the  Prayer  Book  1  Do  they 
pray  for  no  other  objects  than  are  there  specitied, 
or  use  no  other  language  than  that  which  is  written 
down  ?  If  they  do,  what  is  the  authority  for  it  in 
the  Prayer  Book  ?  That  they  do,  is  certainly  the 
impression  of  those  non-episcopalians  who  occasion- 
ally attend  those  meetings,  notwithstanding  the 
Editors  say  so  positively  that  these  "  extemporary" 
prayers  are  "  uniformly  framed  of  the  very  expres- 
sions, and  conveyed  in  the  very  ideas  which  have 
been  acquired  from  the  Liturgy." 

(3.)  Would  the  Prayer  Book  be  all  that  is  needed 
or  proper  in  a  revival  of  religion  1  Would  its  ex- 
clusive use  be  the  best  thing  to  promote  such  a 
work  of  grace  ?  Are  the  prayers  such  as  a  minis- 
ter of  the  gospel  instinctively  wishes  to  offer  in  such 
a  time  for  those  who  are  enquiring  the  way  to  life, 
for  the  awakening,  and  conviction,  and  conversion 
10* 


114 

of  sinners  ?  If  so,  why  is  it  not  always  used  t 
Why  do  low  churchman  ever  resort  to  extemporary 
prayers  ? 

(4.)  Were  revivals  of  religion,  as  the  term  is  now 
used,  in  fact  contemplated  by  the  framers  of  the 
Liturgy  ?  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  they 
were  not.  Revivals  of  religion,  as  the  term  is  now 
used,  were  not  known  in  that  time.  There  are 
features  about  such  works  of  grace,  as  they  occur 
in  this  land  and  in  this  age,  which  were  unknown 
in  England  in  the  days  of  Edward  VI.,  of  Elizabeth, 
and  of  James  I.  The  framers  of  the  Liturgy  were, 
doubtless,  good  and  wise  men  ;  but  it  cannot  be 
supposed  that  they  could  foresee  all  the  phases 
which  religion  would  assume  in  the  course  of  two 
or  three  hundred  years  ;  and  whatever  might  have 
been  their  aims,  and  however  much  they  may  have 
desired  the  promotion  of  religion,  it  cannot  be  pre- 
tended that  they  were  acquainted  with  revivals,  as 
they  have  occurred  in  this  age,  or  that  they  formed 
the  Liturgy  with  reference  to  such  works  of  grace. 
The  high  church  party,  it  is  believed,  in  their  inter- 
pretation of  the  Prayer  Book,  find  no  allusion  to 
such  phenomena,  and  would  maintain,  I  presume, 
quite  as  stoutly  as  I  have  done,  that  there  is  no 
such  reference  in  the  book. 

(5.)  The  Editors  of  the  Recorder,  in  commenting 
on  my  remarks  on  revivals  of  religion,  and  speak- 
ing of  what  they  have  witnessed  in  the  Episcopal 
churches  in  "  twenty-five  years,"  say,  "  These 
things  are  known  ;  they  have  been  uniformly  and 
always  the  legitimate  fruits  of  this  very  Liturgy." 
But  how  has  it  happened  that  these  "legitimate 
fruits  of  the  Liturgy"  never  spring  up  under  the 
auspices  of  the  high  church  party  ?     Are  they  less 


115 

assiduous  and  faithful  in  the  use  of  this  Liturgy 
than  the  low  church  party  ?  Do  they  make  a  less 
exclusive  employment  of  it  in  the  public  service 
than  their  low  church  brethren  ?  The  common 
impression  in  this  city,  I  presume,  have  been,  that 
the  "  revivals"  of  religion  in  the  Episcopal  church- 
es, under  the  care  of  low  churchmen,  has  been 
somehow  specially  connected  with  the  kind  of 
preaching  with  which  the  church  of  St.  Andrew's 
and  kindred  churches  have  been  favored,  and  that 
the  effects  there  witnessed  have  not  "  always"  been 
merely  "  the  legitimate  fruits  of  this  very  Liturgy." 
It  will  be  somewhat  difficult  for  the  public  to  un- 
derstand how  "  this  very  Liturgy"  has  produced 
such  different  effects  on  the  two  classes  of  churches. 
"  Doth  a  fountain  send  forth  at  the  same  place 
sweet  water  and  bitter  ?  Can  the  fig-tree  bear  olive 
berries  ?  Either  a  vine,  figs  'I  So  can  no  fountain 
both  yield  salt  water  and  fresh." 

There  are  no  Arrangements  in  the  Prayer  Book 
for  the  promotion  of  Sunday  Schools,  or  for  the 
proper  religious  training  of  the  young. 

I  specified  as  a  third  thing  in  which  there  were 
no  arrangements  in  the  Liturgy  for  promoting  the 
peculiar  objects  aimed  at  by  the  Evangelical  party, 
that  there  are  no  provisions  for  the  promotion  of 
religion  among  the  young  in  Sunday  Schools, 
whether  as  a  sectarian  matter,  or  in  connection  with 
other  denominations.  In  reference  to  this,  I  ob- 
served, that  the  Sabbath  School  is  an  institution 
which  has  grown  up  since  the  Prayer  Book  was 
arranged  for  the  use  of  the  Anglican  church,  and 
that  it  has  never  been  modified  so  as  to  meet  these 
peculiar  efforts  for  the  young.     I  quoted  Archbishop 


116 

Whately,  who  admits  and  laments  tliis  defect  in  the 
system,  and  who  candidly  confesses  that  a  revision 
of  the  Prayer  Book,  so  as  to  adapt  it  it  to  the  effort^ 
to  train  up  the  young,  would  be  no  small  improve- 
ment. I  had  reason  to  suppose  that  all  low  church- 
men would  admit  the  same  thing  without  hesitation. 
I  knew  of  their  zeal  in  so  good  a  cause,  and  that 
some  of  them  were  associated  with  ministers  and 
churches  of  other  denominations  in  the  promotion  of 
the  object,  and  indeed  that  they  were  prominent  in  the 
attempt  to  promote  the  "  union"  of  different  churches 
for  this  purpose.  Instead,  however,  of  this  admis- 
sion, or  of  any  intimation  that  there  is  the  slightest 
defect  in  the  Liturgy  on  this  point,  the  Editors  of 
the  Recorder  are  pleased  to  indulge  in  the  following 
Strain  of  remark  : — 

"  Really  our  patience  begins  to  fail.  By  whom 
were  Sabbath  schools  devised  ?  Who  was  this  '  Ro- 
bert Raikes,'  upon  whose  '  efforts  God  has  set  the 
undoubted  seal  of  his  blessing  1'  Who  have  been 
always  prominent  in  this  city  as  elsewhere,  for  this 
very  care  and  instruction  of  children,  which  Mr. 
Barnes  denies  ?  We  are  ready  to  leave  these  ques- 
tions to  the  Sunday  School  Union, — to  the  children, 
— we  had  almost  said  to  Presbyterians  themselves. 
Episcopalians  have  taken  the  lead  in  the  whole  in 
every  case  ;  and  nothing  is  more  remarkable  among 
us,  than  the  affection  which  our  children  instinc- 
tively acquire  for  this  very  Liturgy.  But  we  have 
said  enough  upon  all  these  points.  To  go  farther 
into  an  examination  of  such  statements  in  this 
work,  though  we  have  omitted  not  a  few,  is  unne- 
cessary." 

Now,  I  am  not  in  the  least  degree  disposed  to 
call  in  question  the  substantial   truth  of  these  re- 


117 

marks.  It  was  by  no  means  my  intention  to  ques- 
tion the  zeal  of  Episcopalians  in  this  matter,  or  to 
disparage  '  Robert  Raikes.'  But  how  does  this 
prove  that  my  declaration  was  unfounded,  or  that 
there  was  any  propriety  in  the  Editors'  allowing 
their  "  patience  to  begin  to  fail  ?"  How  does  it  de- 
monstrate that  there  are  in  the  Liturgy  any  special 
arrangements  for  the  promotion  of  religion  among 
the  young  ?  How  does  it  show  that  any  such  insti- 
stution  was  contemplated  by  the  Prayer  Book  as 
sabbath  schools  '\  How  does  it  make  it  clear  that 
according  to  that  book,  it  is  proper  for  Episcopa- 
lians to  unite  with  other  denominations  in  endea- 
voring to  promote  Sunday  schools  ?  I  said  nothing 
implying  that  such  efforts  were  not  made,  or  were 
in  themselves  improper.  I  have  been  disposed  to 
rejoice  in  all  such  evidences  of  a  disposition  to  unite 
with  others  in  the  promotion  of  any  good  object.  I 
am  very  well  aware  that  the  Sunday  School  Union 
of  this  city  owes  much  to  the  zealous  co-operation 
of  Episcopalians.  But  I  am  also  aware,  that  there 
is  a  very  large  party  in  the  Episcopal  church  who 
doubt  the  propriety  of  all  such  attempts  at  union  with 
others,  and  who  steadfastly  maintain  that  it  is  not 
in  accordance  with  the  Liturgy,  and  is  a  departure 
from  the  real  spirit  of  the  Episcopal  church.  They 
find  nothing  of  all  this  in  the  Prayer  Book  ;  they 
regard  their  own  church  as  called  on  to  conduct  all 
these  enterprises  without  connection  with  others, 
and  they  steadfastly  stand  aloof  from  all  attempts 
to  induce  them  to  act  in  union  with  other  denomi- 
nations. The  question  is,  whether  their  inter- 
pretation of  their  own  book  is  correct,  and  on  this 
point  the  remarks  of  the  Recorder  about  what  '  Ro- 
bert Raikes'  did,  and  what  Episcopalians  in  this  city 


118 

have  in  fact  done,  cast  no  light  whatever.  They 
contribute  nothing  to  show  that  they  are  acting  in 
accordance  with  the  rules  and  arrangements  in  their 
own  book,  or  that  their  high  church  brethren  are 
wrong  in  the  stand  which  they  have  taken  in  this 
matter.  For  one,  I  still  believe  that  the  views  of 
the  high  church  party  in  reference  to  all  such 
union  with  other  denominations  are  wholly  right  so 
far  as  the  Prayer  Book  is  concerned,  and  wholly 
wrong  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  is  concerned ; 
and  that  in  reference  to  the  Sunday  school  effort, 
both  high  church  and  low  are  engaged  in  what  the 
Liturgy  does  not  contemplate.  The  simple  matter 
of  fact  is,  that  the  Sunday  school  is  an  institution 
which  has  grown  up  since  the  Liturgy  was  framed, 
and  even  since  it  was  revised  to  adapt  it  to  the 
American  churches,  and  it  is  one  of  the  faults  of 
the  system  that  it  does  not  readily  adapt  itself  to 
the  progress  of  events.  The  "  petrified  wisdom  of 
the  age  of  Elizabeth,"  is  not  all  that  is  needed  in 
the  Christian  church  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

I  have  now  passed  over  all  the  points  to  which  1 
referred  in  order  to  show  that  there  are  no  arrange- 
ments or  provisions  in  the  Liturgy  for  promoting 
the  peculiar  and  distinctive  efforts  of  the  low  church 
party  except  two — prayer  meetings,  and  union  on 
rehgious  subjects  with  other  denominations.  Under 
another  head,  I  have  said  all  that  I  wish  in  respect 
to  the  former,  and  in  the  close  I  shall  have  an  op- 
portunity of  referring  to  the  latter.  I  dismiss,  there- 
ibre,  this  part  of  the  argument. 

Points  established  by  the  discussion. 
I  shall   now  notice  in  conclusion,  some  points 
which  have  been  established  by  the  discussion,  and 


119 

which  it  is  of  importance  the  churches  should  un- 
derstand in  reference  to  the  present  aspect  of  Epis- 
copacy. 

The  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration. 

1.  It  is  now  settled,  so  far  as  the  authority  of  the 
Editors  of  the  Recorder  goes,  that  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration  is  "  in  some  sense  the  doc- 
trine of  the  church,  and  of  every  minister  in  the 
church."  In  what  sense,  exactly,  this  is  held,  the 
Editors  have  not,  indeed,  informed  us,  but  that  it  is 
held  in  any  sense  will  probably  surprise  and  grieve 
those  of  other  denominations  who  have  sympathised 
with  the  Evangelical  party.  I  have  shown  in 
what  senses  only  it  can  be  held,  and  that  it  is  held 
in  any  one  of  these  senses  is  a  most  alarming  fact 
in  reference  to  the  state  of  religion  in  the  Episcopal 
church.  I  have  also  shown  in  what  sense  it  is  to 
be  held  according  to  the  fair  interpretation  of  the 
Prayer  Book,  and,  until  this  is  disavowed,  it  is  fair 
to  regard  the  entire  Episcopal  church  as  exerting 
its  influence  to  keep  this  doctrine  before  the  com- 
munity, and  to  commend  it  to  universal  belief. 

The  Evangelical  party  is  anti-Calvinistic, 

2.  A  second  point  which  is  settled  by  the  discus- 
sion is,  that  according  to  the  Recorder,  the  low 
church  party  is  anti-Calvinistic.  On  this  point,  the 
language  of  the  Editors  is  without  ambiguity.  In 
my  Tract,  intending  no  reproach,  but  meaning  it 
as  an  expression  of  sincere  respect  and  kindness,  I 
used  the  following  language  :  "  The  low  church- 
man is  in  general  a  Calvinist,  and  frequently  of  the 
highest  order.  He  preaches  the  humbling  doctrines 
of  the  cross,  and  advocates   the  lofty  themes  of 


120 

divine  sovereignty  in  the  salvation  of  men."  p.  9. 
I  thought  I  had  good  reasons  for  using  this  lan- 
guage, and  never  supposed  for  one  moment  that  it 
would  be  regarded  as  injurious,  or  that  its  truth 
would  be  called  in  question.  Scarcely  any  lan- 
guage which  I  used,  however,  appears  to  have 
wounded  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder  more,  and 
they  reply  to  it  in  the  following  decisive  manner : 
"  Of  this  assertion,  we  have  simply  to  say,  that 

WE    ARE    UNACQUAINTED    WITH   A    SINGLE    CLERGYMAN  OF 

THE  Episcopal  church  who  is  a  Calvinist;  or  who 

does  not  reject  some  of  the  very  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Calvinism,  such  as  the  limited  character  of  the 
atonement,  and  the  reprobation  of  the  ungodly, 
with  abhorrence,  as  in  no  sense,  the  teachings  of 
the  word  of  God.  These  doctrines  we  leave  to 
Presbyterian  maintenance  as,  we  believe,  they 
originated  in  Presbyterian  invention." 

Probably  no  remark  made  by  the  Editors  of  the 
Recorder  in  their  review,  has  produced  more  sur- 
prise in  the  community  than  this ;  and  if  they  are 
to  be  regarded,  as  I  know  not  why  they  should  not 
be,  as  proper  witnesses  of  the  prevalent  belief  of 
the  Evangelical  party,  the  declaration  has  revealed 
a  state  of  things  in  the  Episcopal  church  that  was  not 
even  suspected.  The  Editors  have  uncommon  ad- 
vantages for  testifying  on  this  point.  They  are 
identified  with  that  party,  and  are  regarded  as 
among  its  leaders.  They  conduct  a  paper  which 
is  known  as  the  organ  of  the  party.  They  may  be 
presumed  to  be  intimately  acquainted  with  the  views 
of  their  brethren.  Almost  two  months,  moreover, 
have  now  passed  away  since  the  declaration  was 
made,  and  so  far  as  appears,  it  has  been  received 
with  silent  acquiescence  by  all  their  brethren  as 


131 

expressing  their  views.  If  their  brethren  had  dis- 
sented from  it,  it  would  be  fair  to  presume  that  they 
would  not  suffer  a  statement  of  so  serious  a  cha- 
racter respecting  their  doctrinal  belief  to  have 
passed  unnoticed. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  go  into  a  defence  of  Cal- 
vinism, or  to  show  that  once  it  was  not  deemed  dis- 
honorable in  the  Episcopal  church  to  hold  the 
system  of  doctrines  known  by  that  name.  The 
declaration  before  us  as  a  statement  of  a  fact,  its 
exact  meaning,  and  its  importance  in  understanding 
the  "  position  of  the  Evangelical  party,"  are  all  that 
the  purpose  of  my  argument  requires  me  to  notice. 
I  might  show  that  the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement 
is  no  part  of  Calvinism,  as  the  Editors  suppose,  for 
Calvin  taught  that  Christ  died  for  the  whole  human 
race — totum  humanum  genus  ;  and  might  show  that 
the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement  has  not  been  held 
by  the  great  body  of  those  who  have  held  that  sys- 
tem of  faith.  I  might  show,  with  great  ease,  that 
the  Calvinistic  doctrines  were  not  "  originated  in 
Presbyterian  invention  ;"  a  declaration  which  evin- 
ces singular  want  of  deliberation  in  him  who  penned 
it.  But  these  are  not  the  points  before  us.  They 
are,  what  is  the  fair  interpretation  to  be  put  on  this 
language  of  the  Recorder  ?  What  does  it  disclose 
as  to  the  '  position'  of  the  party  with  which  they  are 
identified?  Perhaps  it  might  be  said  that  they 
mean  only  to  disclaim  the  belief  of  these  two  points 
which  they  have  specified,  the  doctrine  of  '  limited 
atonement,'  and  the  '  reprobation  of  the  ungodly  ;' 
and  that  they  meant  to  extend  their  denial  no  fur- 
ther. But  then,  it  would  have  been  very  easy  to 
have  said  so,  while  the  general  belief  in  the  system 
would  have  been  conceded.  But  the  fair  interpre- 
11 


♦  122 

tation  of  their  language  does  not  admit  of  this  con- 
struction. There  is  a  warmth,  an  ardor,  an  ear- 
nestness about  the  language  applied  to  Calvinism 
as  a  whole,  which  shows  that  there  was  no  desire 
to  be  identified  with  it  in  any  way  whatever.  It 
is  such  language  of  revulsion  and  abhorrence  as 
a  passionate  Athanasian  might  be  supposed  to  use 
of  Arianism  ;  or  as  a  heated  follower  of  Augus- 
tine would  use  of  the  views  of  Pelagius.  There 
is  the  express  declaration,  "  We  are  unacquainted 
with  a  single  clergyman  of  the  Episcopal  church 
who  is  a  Calvinist."  There  is  the  lanouao;e  of 
strong  "  abhorrence^''''  used  of  one  of  the  doctrines 
commonly  regarded  as  peculiar  to  the  system. 
"  We  are  unacquainted  with  a  single  clergyman 
who  does  not  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  reprobation 
of  the  ungodly  iDith  abhorrence.^^  There  is  the 
strong  and  positive  assertion  that  these  doctrines 
"  originated  in  Presbyterian  invention  ;"  and  that 
the  Editors  are  disposed  to  "  leave  them  to  Presby- 
terian maintenance,"  as  if  an  Episcopalian  could 
have  nothing  to  do  with  them. 

From  these  expressions,  it  is  fair  to  infer  that  the 
Editors  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  holding  to 
the  Calvinistic  system,  and  that  as  far  as  their 
knowledge  extends,  the  Evangelical  party,  in  com- 
mon with  high  churchmen,  ar^  unanimous  in  the 
rejection  of  the  system. 

It  is  by  no  means  my  intention  to  go  into  a  de- 
fence of  Calvinism,  or  to  attempt  to  prove  that  Cal- 
vinism is  taught  in  the  articles  of  the  Episcopal 
church.  The  whole  object  of  my  enquiry  is  accom- 
plished if  the  '■'•  position,''''  actually  occupied  by  the 
low  church  party  is  ascertained.  If  I  had  charged 
on  that  party  a  denial  of  the  doctrines  of  Calvin- 


123 

ism,  1  should  have  supposed  that  I  was  doing  them 
manifest  injustice,  for  I  supposed  that  quite  gener- 
ally they  regarded  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  as  be- 
ing that  of  the  articles  of  their  church.  There 
are  two  or  three  remarks  which  it  seems  proper 
however,  to  make  here  as  illustrative  of  this  feature 
in  the  "  position"  of  the  Evangelical  party. 

(1.)  One  is,  that  this  horror  of  Galvanism  has 
not  always  been  felt  by  the  Fathers  or  friends  of 
the  Episcopal  church.  It  was  not  so  regarded  in 
the  time  of  king  Edward,  whose  Catechism  which 
was  subscribed  by  Ridley  and  Cranmer,  contains 
the  following  sentiment: — 

"  As  many  as  are  in  this  faith  steadfast^  were 
fore  chosen,  predestinated  and  appointed  to  ever- 
lasting life,  before  the  world  was  made.  Witness 
hereof,  they  have  within  in  their  hearts  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  the  author,  earnest,  and  unfailable  pledge 
of  this  faith ;  which  faith  only  is  able  to  perceive 
the  mysteries  of  God ;  only  brings  peace  unto  the 
heart,  only  taketh  hold  on  the  righteousness  which 

is  in  Christ  Jesus 

.  .  The  first,  principal,  and  most  proper  cause  of 
our  justification  and  salvation,  is  the  goodness  and 
love  of  God,  whereby  he  choose  us  for  his  before  he 
made  the  world.  .  .  .  Finally,  to  say  all  in  sum ; 
whatever  is  in  us  or  may  be  done  of  us,  honest,  pure, 
true,  and  good  ;  it  altogether  springeth  out  of  this 
most  pleasant  rock,  from  this  most  plentiful  foun- 
tain, the  goodness,  love,  choice,  and  unchangeable 
purpose  of  God.     He  is  the  cause ;  the  rest  are  the 

fruits  and  effects 

-  .  .  The  Holy  Ghost  is  called  holy,  not  only  for 
his  own  holiness,  but  because  the  elect  of  God  are 
made  holy  by  him.     The  Church  is  the  company. 


124 

of  those  who  are  called  to  eternal  life  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  whom  she  is  guided,  governed,  &c. " 

This  horror  of  Calvinism  was  not  felt  in  the 
days  of  Toplady,  of  Bradford,  of  Latimer,  of  Hooper, 
of  Philpot,  and  of  Jewell,  among  the  holiest  men 
that  the  church  has  ever  produced,  all  of  whom 
were  Calvinists,  and  most  of  whom,  under  the  in- 
fluence and  sustaining  power  of  the  Calvinistic 
faith,  sealed  their  faith  with  their  blood.*  This  hor- 
ror was  not  felt  by  Horsley,  nor  was  it  felt  in  the 
days  of  John  Newton,  of  Cowper,  of  Thomas  Scott ; 
nor  is  it  felt  by  the  conductors  of  the  Christian 
Observer  in  England,  or  by  many  of  the  most  ex- 
cellent and  eminent  living  ministers  in  that  church. 

(2.)  This  horror  of  Calvinism  is  not  easily  recon- 
cilable with  a  belief  in  the  articles  of  the  Episcopal 
church.  The  Calvinistic  character  of  those  articles, 
at  least  to  all  those  who  are  out  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  is  apparent,  and  there  can  be  to  none  but 
an  Episcopalian  any  considerable  doubt  as  to  their 
Calvinistic  origin  and  meaning  The  well  known 
17th  article  is  in  the  following  words  : — 

Art.  XVII.  "  Predestination  to  life  is  the  ever- 
lasting purpose  of  God,  whereby  (before  the  foun- 
dations of  the  world  were  laid)  he  hath  constantly 
decreed  by  his  counsel,  secret  to  us,  to  deliver  from 
curse  and  damnation,  those  whom  he  hath  chosen 
in  Christ  out  of  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  by 
Christ,  to  everlasting  salvation,  as  vessels  made  to 
honor,"  &c.  &c.  Its  conclusion  is,  "  Further- 
more we  must  receive  God's  promises  in  such' wise 
as  they  be  generally  set  forth  to  us  in  holy  "Scrip- 

*  See  the  proof  that  they  were  Calvinists  in  the  quotations 
from  their  writings  in  the  Presbyterian  for  April,  13,  1844. 


125 

ture :  And  in  our  doings,  that  will  of  God  is  to  be 
followed,  which  we  have  expressly  declared  unto  us 
in  the  Word  of  God." 

It  is  often  said  by  Episcopalians  that  the  quali- 
fying clause  at  the  end  of  this  article,  is  decisive 
proof  of  a  design  to  contradict  and  exclude  the  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine  of  Predestination.  Now  this  clause 
is  nearly,  copied  from  Calvin's  Institutes,  and  the 
latter  part  of  it  is  a  literal  transalation  of  this  Re- 
former's caution,  against  the  abuse  of  this  very  doc- 
trine.    Let  the  two  be  placed  in  parellel  columns. 

Article  xvii.  Calvin's  Institutes. 

"  Furthermore  we  must  re.  "  Quando  suis  promission- 
ceive  God's  promises  in  such  ihus  (Deus)  vult  nos  esse  con- 
wise  as  they  be  generally  set  tentos,  neque  alibi  quaerere 
forth  to  us  in  Holy  Scrip-  an  futurus  sit  nobis  exorabi- 
ture."  lis."  Lib.  iii.  Cap.  xxiv.  §  5. 

The  remainder  is  a  literal  translation.  It  is  as 
follows  : — 

"  And    in  our  doings,  that  "  Proinde  in  rehus  agen- 

will  of  God  is  to  be  followed,  dis  eaest  nobis  perspicienda 

which  we  have  expressly  de-  Dei    voluntas,   quam   verho 

clared  unto   us  in  the  Word  suo  declarat"    Lib.  i.  Cap. 

of  God."  xvii.  §  5. 

Even  the  Armenian  Bishop  Burnet  was  obliged 
to  confess,  in  regard  to  this  article,  that  "It  is 
very  probable  that  those  who  penned  this  article 
■meant  that  the  decree  was  absolute.''^  And  again 
he  says  : — 

"  But  the  Calvinists  have  less  occasion  for  scru- 
ple, since  the  article  does  seem  more  plainly  to 
favor  them ;"  and  again,  "  It  is  not  to  be  denied 
but  that  the  article  seems  to  be  framed  according 
to  St.  Augustin's  doctrine  ;"  and  again,  "  In  Eng- 
land the  first  Reformers  were  generally  in  the  sub. 
iapsarian  hypothesis,"  &c.  &c.  &;c. 
IP 


126 

I  have  said  that  the  Calvinistic  character  of  the 
Episcopal  articles  to  those  out  of  "  the  church,"  is 
apparent.  On  this  point,  there  are  two  facts  which 
are  of  some  importance  in  arriving  at  the  meaning 
of  these  articles.  The  first  is,  that  the  XVllth 
Article,  in  its  plain  sense,  has  always  been  en- 
tirely satisfactory  to  all  Calvinists.  They  have 
never  had  but  one  understanding  of  its  meaning, 
and  with  all  the  tenacity  and  scrupulosity  with 
which  they  hold  the  Calvinistic  views,  they  would 
regard  the  XVI Ith  Article  as  a  fair  expression  of 
their  opinions.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  there 
never  has  been  a  Calvinist  out  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  learned  or  unlearned,  who  has  had  any 
other  opinion  of  that  article  than  that  it  is  Calvinis- 
tic. The  other  fact  is,  that  the  Methodist  denomi- 
nation, who  are  avowedly  Armenians,  have  been  so 
thoroughly  satisfied  of  the  Calvinism  of  this  article, 
that  they  have  wholly  omitted  it  in  their  own  arti- 
cles ;  judging  it  to  be  honest  that,  as  they  did  not 
hold  to  the  doctrine,  they  should  not  retain  it  in 
their  formularies  of  faith.  Of  all  the  Methodists 
who  have  lived,  and  who  still  live,  in  this  land  or 
in  England,  from  Wesley  and  Coke  down  to  the 
very  obscurest  local  preacher,  it  is  probable  that 
there  has  never  been  one  who  has  not  fully  believed 
that  that  article  is  Calvinistic,  and  who  would  not 
have  rejected  it  from  their  articles  of  faith  with 
more  than  the  "  abhorrence"  with  which  the  Edit- 
ors of  the  Recorder  spoke  of  Calvinism. 

(3.)  There  is  reason  to  believe  still,  that  notwith- 
standing  the  disclaimer  of  the  Editors  of  the  Re- 
corder, there  are  those  in  the  Evangelical  party 
who  are  Calvinists  ;  though  it  may  be  true,  as  a 
party,  that  they  are  less  favourably  inclined  to  that 


127 

faith  than  the  religious  commimity  have  commonly 
supposed.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  collect  from  the 
Recorder  itself,  in  years  that  are  past,  sentiments  that 
are  of  a  highly  Calvinistic  tendency,  and  commenda- 
tions of  books  that  are  of  the  most  thorough-going  Cal- 
vinistic character.  It  vi^ould  be  easy  to  collect  from 
living  men  expressions  of  sentiments  that  strongly 
favor  Calvinism,  Even  since  the  Review  in  the  Re- 
corder appeared,  the  following  extract  from  the  writ- 
ings of  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Episcopal  church 
has  been  published  by  an  Episcopalian  who  shows  that 
he  is  no  stranger  to  what  is  held  in  his  own  church. 
"  Did  our  Reformers,"  writes  the  catholic-minded 
Bishop  Meade,  (himself  a  Calvinist,)  "  protest 
against  Calvinism,  or  Armenianism? — or  against 
too  high  or  too  low  views  of  church  polity  ?  Was 
it  on  any  of  these  accounts  that  our  church  was 
denominated  Protestant  ?  In  opposition  to  this  it 
-should  be  remembered  that  those  who  are  engaged 
in  drawing  up,  and  from  time  to  time  reviewing 
and  sitting  in  judgment  upon  our  Articles  and 
services,  were  loithout  distinction  Cahinists  and 
Armenians,  high  and  low  churchmen." — The  No- 
velties which  disturb  our  Unity,  p.  51.  Are  the 
Editors  of  the  Recorder  entire  strangers  to  "  the 
catholic-minded  Bishop  Meade?"  How,  then,  are 
we  to  understand  their  remarkable  declaration 
about  Calvinism  ?  The  churches  of  other  deno- 
minations will  probably  wait  with  some  interest  to 
obtain  farther  light  on  this  point.  Is  it  the  pur- 
pose of  the  low  church  party  to  reject  and  re- 
nounce Calvinism  "  with  abhorrence  ]"  Do  they 
wish  to  be  identified  with  Armenians  wholly,  and 
t"o  be  understood  to  be  Armenians  ?  If  so,  this  is 
a  developement  of  Episcopacy  which  was  not  an- 


128 

ticipated,  and  which  will  give  a  new  view  to  this 
whole  question.  The  well  known  remark  of  Lord 
Chatham,  when  speaking  of  the  established  church 
in  England,  it  is  probable,  will  never  be  forgotten  : 
"  We  have  a  Popish  Liturgy,  Calvinistic  articles, 
and  an  Armenian  clergy."  Of  the  truth  of  the  two 
former  of  these  assertions,  the  community  at  large, 
out  of  the  Episcopal  church,  has  little  doubt.  It 
was  to  have  been  hoped  that  the  whole  tendency  of 
the  efforts  of  the  Evangelical  party  in  the  church 
would  have  been  to  disprove  the  latter  assertion  so 
far  as  their  influence  could  go.  The  tendency  of 
the  testimony  of  the  Recorder  is  to  prove  that  all 
his  Lordship's  sweeping  declaration  is  well  founded. 

No  other  church  is  to  be  recognised  by  the  Evan- 
gelical party. 

3.  A  third  point  settled  by  this  discussion,  it 
would  seem,  is,  that  no  other  churches  are  to  be 
recognised  by  the  low  church  party  than  those 
under  Episcopal  government.  In  my  Tract,  in 
view  of  certain  things  which  seemed  to  me  to  be 
irreconcilable  in  the  treatment  of  other  denomina- 
tions by  low  church  Episcopalians,  I  submitted  the 
following  questions  : 

'  Do  the  Evangelical  party  regard  the  ministers 
of  other  denominations  as  in  any  sense  authorised 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  and  their  churches  as  true 
churches  ?  If  they  do — (which  we  do  not  believe 
to  be  the  case) — then  we  ask  of  them,  why  they 
are  never  in  any  proper  way  so  recognised'?  Why 
do  they  not  come  out  and  openly  say  so  ?  Why 
do  they  never  admit  them  to  their  pulpits  ?  Why 
do  they  never  protest  against  their  being  re-ordained 
when  one  of  their  number  leaves  the  church  of  his 


129 

fathers,  and  enters  the  service  of  the  Episcopal  de- 
nomination? Why  do  they  submit  to  the  gross 
public  indignity  offered  to  the  Protestant  churches 
by  the  uniform  acts  of  the  Episcopal  church,  ad^ 
mitting  a  Catholic  priest  at  once  to  officiate  at  her 
altars  without  re-ordination  ;  demanding  that  every 
other  minister  shall  be  ordained  V 

The  object  of  these  questions  was,  if  any  of  that 
party  thought  them  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
answered,  to  obtain  an  explicit  statement  on  a  point 
of  great  moment  to  the  Christian  community  at 
large.  It  was  to  learn  exactly  where  the  low 
church  party  stood  on  this  subject,  and  whether 
they  wish  to  be  regarded  as  identified  with  their 
high  church  brethren  in  their  exclusive  views  re- 
specting other  churches.  It  was  to  be  presumed 
that  there  would  be  entire  frankness  on  this  point, 
and  it  was  supposed  that  the  churches  had  a  right 
to  be  informed  on  this  point.  It  was  not,  indeed, 
supposed  that  the  opinions  of  low  church  Episco- 
palians would  do  any  thing  in  determining  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  churches  of  other  denominations 
are,  in  fact,  true  churches ;  but  intermingled  as  we 
are  and  with  the  efforts  which  Episcopalians  are 
constantly  making  to  increase  their  numbers,  it 
was  considered  as  desirable  to  understand  in  what 
light  they  regarded  others  —  whether  as  true 
churches,  or  as  left  to  the  "  uncovenanted  mercies 
of  God."  It  is  from  no  invidious  intention  that 
there  is  a  wish  in  the  community  to  be  informed  on 
this  point,  but  it  is  of  importance  to  understand  it 
as  among  the  developemehts  of  Episcopacy,  and  as 
illustrating  its  real  tendency.  The  Editors  of  the 
Recorder  could  not,  indeed,  be  regarded  as  bound 
to  answer  these  questions,  but  they  have  felt  them- 


130 

selves  called  upon  to  notice  the  inquiry  in  their 
own  way,  and  1  purpose  now  to  submit  a  few  re- 
marks on  their  answer. 

(1.)  It  would  have  been  perfectly  easy,  if  the 
questions  were  noticed  at  all,  to  have  given  an  ex- 
plicit answer;  an  answer  without  hesitation,  and 
without  ambiguity.  This,  too,  it  was  not  unrea- 
sonable to  expect ;  but  this  has  not  been  done. 
There  is  no  distinct  and  open  statement,  whether 
they  do,  or  do  not  recognise  other  churches  as  true 
churches.  In  Bishop  Hobart's  writings,  in  Bishop 
Hopkins's  recent  letters,  in  the  "Banner  of  the 
Cross,"  and  in  the  "  Churchman,"  we  have  state- 
ments of  which  no  one  can  complain  for  any  want 
of  explicitness.  Such  a  direct  answer  will  not  be 
found,  as  yet,  in  the  Episcopal  Recorder. 

(2.)  In  the  answer  itself,  it  is  not  difficult  to  de- 
termine the  true  opinion  of  the  Low  church  party, 
as  expounded  by  the  Editors.  Their  real  opinions 
may  be  gathered  from  the  following  particulars  in 
their  review,  (a)  "  Certainly  the  recognition  of 
another  church  than  the  Episcopal,  or  of  other  min- 
isters of  the  gospel  than  the  Episcopal,  is  a  thing 
unknown  to  the  Prayer  Book."  The  Editors  give 
indeed  as  a  reason  for  this,  that  no  other  churches 
were  known  at  the  time  when  the  Prayer  Book  was 
composed,  and  this  remark  is  made  in  that  connec- 
tion. It,  however,  admits  the  main  fact  that  in  the 
Prayer  Book  no  other  church  is  recognised  but  the 
Episcopal.  The  reason  assigned,  I  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  examine  in  another  place,  (b)  The  re- 
marks of  the  Editors  seem  to  imply  that  it  would 
not  be  proper  or  right  to  have  had  a  prayer  inserted 
in  the  Prayer  Book  for  other  churches.  The  ten- 
dency of  such  prayers  would  be  only  to  ^^  justify 


131 

schisni'^ — a  thing  of  which  an  Episcopalian  seems 
to  have  more  horror  than  of  anything  else.  Thus 
they  say : — 

"  Whether  it  would  be  right  to  justify  such 
schisms  by  praying  for  them,  is  a  question  which 
we  may  well  leave  the  Presbyterian  church  to  an- 
swer. Do  the  Old  School  ministers  pray  habitually 
for  the  success  of  the  men  of  the  New  School,  who 
have  divided  from  them  l  Does  Mr.  Barnes  pray 
for  the  success  of  those  who  have  gone  out  from 
him  1  Or  do  they  both  only,  as  the  Liturgy  does, 
pray  that  God  would  '  bring  into  the  way  of  truth, 
all  such  as  have  erred  and  are  deceived  V  " 

As  to  the  questions  asked  here,  they  can  be  an- 
swered in  a  word.  "  Old  School  ministers,"  and 
"  New  School  ministers,"  never  have  any  hesitancy 
in  praying  for  each  other.  I  have  heard,  by  far, 
more  prayers  offered  for  tlie  "  Old  School"  party 
in  the  Presbyterian  church  by  "  New  School"  min- 
isters, than  I  have  for  any  or  all  other  denomina- 
tions by  name  ;  and  I  know  that  there  is  no  hesi- 
tancy about  offering  such  prayers,  and  that  those 
who  offer  them  never  pause  to  ponder  the  miser- 
able interrogatory,  whether  this  would  be  "to  jus- 
tify schism."  But  it  may  be  fairly  i?f erred  from  this 
assertion  of  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder,  that  they 
would  not  deem  it  "  right"  to  pray  for  any  other 
churches  or  denominations  of  christians  than  their 
own  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  not  unfair  to  infer  that  they 
do  not  regard  them  as  true  churches.  They  can 
have  no  hesitation  in  supposing  that  it  is  "  right" 
that  a  prayer  for  the  true  church  should  be  found 
in  the  Prayer  Book,  and  should  be  habitually  used, 
(c)  The  same  thing  is  apparent  from  the  quotation 
from  the  Liturgy  with  which  their  remarks  about 


132 

other  churches  are  closed,  when  they  say  that  the 
"  Liturgy"  "  prays"  that  God  would  "  bring  into 
the  way  of  truth  all  such  as  have  erred  and  are 
deceived. ''''  That  is,  it  is  "right"  to  pray  for  other 
churches  only  under  one  of  the  categories  of  "  hav- 
ing erred,''''  or  being  "  deceived.''''  To  which  of 
these  categories,  or  whether  to  both,  they  are  to  be 
surrendered,  the  Editors  have  not  informed  us,  and 
it  is  not  material.  Either  will  sufficiently  indicate 
the  light  in  which  they  are  to  be  regarded,  and 
show  that,  in  their  apprehension,  to  pray  for  them 
otherwise  than  as  "  erring"'  or  as  "  being  deceived," 
would  be  to  "justify  schism."  As  those  who  "  have 
erred"  or  are  "  deceived,"  moreover  will  include 
all  "  Turks,  heretics,  and  infidels,"  it  would  seem 
that  the  Liturgy  contemplates  all,  so  far  at  least 
as  prayer  for  them  is  concerned,  as  lying  on  the 
same  level.  Now  this  is  not  the  way  in  which 
other  denominations  besides  Episcopalians-  pray. 
They  pray  for  all  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  ;  for  all 
churches ;  for  all  ministers  of  the  gospel ;  nor  is  it 
a  common  thing,  so  far  as  I  have  the  means  of 
knowing,  to  make  any  distinction  between  those  of 
their  own  and  other  denominations.     I  may  add, 

(3.)  That  the  views  here  expressed  by  the  Re- 
corder about  prayer  for  other  churches  accord  in 
the  main,  with  all  the  open  acts  of  the  low,  as  well 
as  the  high  church  party.  They  never  recognise 
other  churches  as  such.  If  they  recognise  their 
baptism  it  is,  as  we  have  seen,  only  as  lay  baptism. 
They  submit,  without  a  note  of  remonstrance  to  the 
public  indignity  shown  to  all  other  denominations, 
except  the  Roman  Catholics,  when  the  ministers 
of  other  churches  are  required  to  be  re-ordained  on 
being  admitted  to  "  orders"  in  the  Episcopal  church. 


133 

The  Bishops  of  that  party,  so  far  as  appears,  are  as 
prompt  to  re-ordain  as  any  Puseyite  Bishop  in 
the  land,  and  would  no  more  admit  a  Presbyterian, 
a  Baptist,  a  Methodist,  a  German  Lutheran,  or  a 
Dutch  Reformed  minister  to  orders  without  this  cere- 
mony than  would  a  Bishop  with  the  highest  views  of 
the  Tractarians.  It  is,  therefore,  entirely  consistent 
for  the  Editors  of  the  Episcopal  Recorder  to  say, 
that  "  the  recognition  of  another  church  than  the 
Episcopal,  or  of  other  ministers  of  the  Gospel  than 
the  Episcopal,  is  a  thing  unknown  to  the  Prayer 
Book." 

For  this,  however,  the  Editors  assign  a  reason, 
which  it  is  of  some  importance  to  advert  to  for  a 
moment.  This  is  not  done,  say  they,  because 
"  when  the  Prayer  Book  was  formed,  there  were  no 
others  [no  other  churches]  in  existence  ;  and  it  would 
have  required  something  indeed,  beyond'  the  petrified 
wisdom  of  the  age  of  Elizabeth,'  p.  56,  to  have  con- 
ceived in  advance,  the  multiplied  and  multiformed 
sects,  into  which  the  then  nascent  Presbyterianism 
was  to  rend  and  divide  the  professed  body  of  Christ ; 
because  the  blessed  martyrs  and  divines  who  com- 
piled it,  were  not  gifted  with  prophecy  ;  and  it  stands 
forth  to  witness  from  generation  to  generation,  of  a 
time  and  state,  when  the  church  was  one  in  consti- 
tution, and  to  show  thus  incidentally,  but  unan- 
swerably, that  all  the  schisms  which  now  distract 
and  deform  the  aspect  of  Christianity,  are  of  mere 
modern  growth,  '  but  of  yesterday.'  " 

Now  even  if  this  were  so,  it  would  not  be  easy  to 
understand  why,  when  the  Liturgy  was  revised 
after  the  American  Revolution,  some  recognition  of 
other  churches  was  not  introduced  into  the  book, 
though  the  "  blessed  martyrs  who  compiled  it  were 


134 

not  gifted  with  prophecy  ;"  and  could  not  forsee  that 
there  ever  would  he  any  other  sect  in  the  Christian 
church  except  the  Episcopalian.  But  the  Editors 
undertake  to  account  for  the  fact  that  no  such 
prayers  were  inserted  by  "  these  blessed  martyrs 
and  divines"  because  "  when  the  Prayer  Book 
was  formed  there  were  no  other  churches  in 
existence,"  and  the  Prayer  Book  "  stands  forth  to 
witness,  from  generation  to  generation,  of  a  time 
and  state  when  the  church  was  one  in  constitution." 
The  first  act  in  England,  after  the  Reformation,  re- 
specting the  Prayer  Book  was  in  1537,  when  there 
was  composed  and  published  "  The  godly  and  pious 
institution  of  a  Christian  man  ;  containing  a  decla- 
ration of  the  Lord's  prayer,  the  Ave  Maria,  the  creed, 
the  ten  commandments,  the  Seven  Sacraments,^^ 
&c.  This  was  republished  in  1540,  and  1543,  with 
corrections  and  alterations,  and  "  set  forth  by  the 
king,  with  the  advice  of  his  clergy."  In  1540, 
Henry  VIII.  appointed  a  committee  of  Bishops  and 
divines,  to  "  reform  the  rituals  and  offices  of  the 
church,"  and  to  the  other  things  introduced  in 
1537,  there  were  added  the  Venite,  Te  Deum,  and 
some  hymns  and  collects  in  English. — This  whole 
Avork  was  revised  in  the  time  of  Edward  VI.  in 
1547,  and  the  Liturgy  was  drawn  up  substantially 
as  we  have  it,  with  the  "  public  offices  for  Sundays 
and  Holidays,  for  Baptism,  Confirmation,  Matri- 
mony, burial  of  the  dead,  and  other  special  occa- 
sions." At  the  head  of  the  committee  which  en- 
gaged in  this  revision,  was  Archbishop  Cranmer, 
and  it  was  of  this  book  that  the  Parliament  of  1548 
ordained  that  it  had  been  set  forth  by  the  aid  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  book  was  again  revised  and   amended  with 


135 

the  aid  of  Martin  Buccr  and  Peter  Martyr,  of  Ger- 
many, and  of  Alesse,  a  Scotch  divine,  and  thus  re- 
vised and  amended,  was  confirmed  by  the  Parlia- 
ment of  1551.  In  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  it  under- 
went another  revision  by  a  committee,  of  which 
Matthew  Parker,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was 
the  chairman,  and  was  adopted  and  approved  by 
Elizabeth.  In  the  time  of  James  I.,  it  underwent 
another  revision,  and  again  in  the  time  of  Charles  II. 
in  1661,  another  still.  See  Wheatley  on  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  pp.  24 — 32.  The  same  book 
was  again  revised  in  this  country,  in  1792,  and 
"  established"  in  the  form  in  which  we  now  have  it. 
In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  natural  to  ask  what  is 
the  precise  thing  which  was  meant  by  the  Editors 
of  the  Episcopal  Recorder,  when  they  say  with 
such  confidence,  that  "  the  church  was  then  one  in 
constitution,"  and  that  "when  the  Prayer  Book  was 
formed  there  were  no  others  in  existence."  Of  the 
facts  referred  to  respecting  their  own  much-lauded 
Liturgy,  it  cannot  be  reasonably  supposed  they 
are  ignorant.  But  were  there  then  no  other  Pro- 
testant churches  on  the  face  of  the  earth  than  the 
one  in  England  ?  Did  the  Reformation  begin  in 
England  ?  Was  there  neither  in  the  time  of  Henry 
VIII,,  Edward  VI.,  Elizabeth,  James,  or  Charles  II., 
no  other  church  "  in  existence"  but  the  Episcopal 
church  in  England  1  Martin  Bucer,  and  Peter 
Martyr,  and  Alesse — certainly  not  exactly  Epis- 
copalians— assisted  in  one  revision  of  the  Prayer 
Book,  and  where  during  all  this  time  were  the 
churches  of  Germany,  of  Switzerland,  of  France, 
and  of  Scotland?  In  1792,  were  there  no  other 
churches  in  the  United  States  in  behalf  of  whom  a 
prayer  might  have  been  inserted  in  the  Prayer  Book, 


136 

besides  that  one  that  "God  would  bring  into  the  way 
of  truth  all  such  as  have  erred  and  are  deceived]" 
The  assertion  that  there  were  no  other  churches  at 
that  time,  bears  at  least  the  marks  of  singular  haste, 
and  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  fact  that  a  learned 
Episcopalian  should  have  ventured  such  a  remark 
in  any  circumstances  whatever.  Probably  most 
persons  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Refor- 
mation, will  not  consider  it  quite  satisfactory  to 
account  for  the  entire  want  of  all  reference  to 
other  churches  in  the  Prayer  Book,  to  say  "  that 
when  the  Prayer  Book  was  formed  there  were  no 
others  in  existence  ;  and  it  would  have  required 
something,  indeed,  beyond  the  '  petrified  wisdom 
of  the  age  of  Elizabeth'  to  have  conceived,  in  ad- 
vance^ the  multiplied  and  multiformed  sects  into 
which  the  then  nascent  Presbyterianism  was  to  rend 
and  divide  the  professed  body  of  Christ." 

No  other  ministers  are  to  he   recognised  hut 
Episcopal. 

4.  A  fourth  thing  which  seems  to  be  settled  by 
the  review  in  the  Recorder  is,  that  no  other  min- 
isters are  to  be  recognised  but  those  which  are 
Episcopally  ordained.  Whether  any  such  ministers 
were  to  be  recognised,  was  one  of  the  questions 
proposed  in  the  Tract  to  which  the  Editors  of  the 
Recorder  have  undertaken  to  reply.  The  question 
was,  (p.  63,)  whether  "  the  Evangelical  party  re- 
gard the  ministers  of  other  denominations  as  in 
any  sense  authorised  ministers  of  the  gospel  ?"  A 
categorical  answer  to  this  would  have  been  one  of 
the  easiest  things  imaginable,  and  if  they  were  re- 
garded as  such,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  Editors 
would  have  found  pleasure  in  saying  so.     It  would 


137 

have  been  so  in  accordance  with  charity  and  justice, 
and  would  have  so  tended  to  promote  good  feehng 
in  the  churches,  to  say  nothing  of  its  influence  in 
commending  Episcopacy  to  the  favor  of  the  com- 
munity, that  every  consideration  would  have 
prompted  to  a  distinct  and  definite  admission  that 
others  were  to  be  regarded  as  true  ministers  of  the 
gospel.  In  the  absence,  however,  of  any  such  dis- 
tinct recognition,  we  are  to  ascertain  the  opinions 
of  the  Editors  from  the  incidental  hints  which  they 
have  thought  proper  to  submit  to  the  public. 

Perhaps  the  very  absence  itself  of  any  such  re- 
cognition, in  the  circumstances,  will  be  regarded  by 
most  persons  as  sufficient  proof  that  they  do  not 
design  any  such  recognition.  But  they  have  used 
expressions  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  any 
such  recognition,  and  which  cannot  be  mistaken  as 
"  defining  the  position"  which  they  wish  to  be  un- 
derstood as  occupying.  In  order  to  give  the  Editors 
all  the  benefit  which  can  be  derived  from  their  reply 
to  the  question  proposed,  I  will  insert  their  answer 
at  length. 

"  There  must  be  some  line  and  limit  of  admission 
into  the  pulpit,  and  our  church,  to  discuss  no  rela- 
tive questions  of  comparative  schism,  has  wisely 
made  it  around  the  simple  body  of  her  own  minis- 
ters. Presbyterians  have  a  line  equally  exclusive 
and  arbitrary.  Why  do  they  not  invite  the  preach- 
ers of  the  Society  of  Friends  to  officiate  for  them  ? 
Why  do  they  thus  unchurch  a  christian  denomina- 
tion as  respectable  in  personal  character  as  them- 
selves 1  What  Presbyterian  pulpits  were  opened  to 
Joseph  John  Gurney,  in  his  ministry  in  this  coun- 
try, acknowledged  by  all  to  be  one  of  the  best  and 
greatest  of  living  christian  teachers  and  writers  ? 
12* 


138 

How  empty  seems  the  complaint  that  the  Episcopal 
church  denies  the  claims  of  other  bodies  to  the  char- 
acter and  title  of  churches,  from  those  who  can 
write  and  publish  such  books  as  '  Quakerism  not 
Christianity,'  by  one  of  Mr.  Barnes'  particular  and 
eminent  friends  '?  When  or  where  have  we  affirmed 
that  Presbyterianism  was  not  Christianity  ]  How 
absurd  comes  euch  a  complaint  again  from  a  man 
who  deliberately  excludes  our  whole  body  from  the 
pale  of  christianit}^,  and  can  say,  p.  68,  '  There 
has  been  a  feeling,  the  correctness  of  which  no  one 
seemed  to  regard  it  as  proper  to  doubt,  that  the 
Episcopal  sect  was  to  be  numbered  in  the  family  of 
Evangelical  churches.'  Is  this  the  man  to  complain 
that  we  do  not  acknowledge  his  ministry,  or  invite 
his  labors  among  our  churches  1  He  affirms  of  us, 
what  we  have  never  ventured  to  affirm  of  his  body  ; 
with  how  much  injustice, — nay,  conscious  injustice, 
we  shall  not  trust  ourselves  to  say.  And  then  he 
asks,  why  he  is  not  invited  into  our  pulpits,  to 
preach  his  doctrines  to  our  own  people.  But  if  we 
should  invite  Mr.  Barnes,  how  could  he  conscien- 
tiously agree  to  read  a  liturgy,  the  entire  hostility 
of  which  to  all  Evangelical  truth  and  teaching,  he 
has  here  so  repeatedly  and  plainly  proclaimed? 
How  could  he  submit  to  our  Popish  vestments,  and 
postures,  and  forms  1  Or  how  could  he  ask  the 
omission  of  a  Liturgy,  which  he  says,  we  '  are 
compelled  to  use?'  We  do  not  feel  in  any  degree 
called  upon  to  consider  the  abstract  question  of  the 
validity  or  regularity  of  Mr.  Barnes'  ministry  in 
this  connection.  There  are  sufficient  reasons  to  be 
given  for  not  inviting  him  '  to  preach  and  administer 
the  sacraments'  to  our  people,  without  entering 
upon  this.     The  readers  of  the  Recorder  need  no 


139 

information  of  the  stand  which  we  have  uniformly 
taken  upon  this  question." 

In  noticing  this  answer  of  the  Recorder  to  the 
distinct  question  proposed  to  the  Evangelical  party, 
whether  '  they  regard  the  ministers  of  other  denom- 
inations  as  in  any  sense  authorised  ministers  of  the 
gospel,'  I  would  observe,  that  the  question  is  not, 
why  "  Presbyterians  do  not  invite  the  preachers  of 
the  Society  of  Friends  to  officiate  for  them,"  or 
whether  the  "  Presbyterian  pulpits  were  opened  to 
Joseph  John  Gurney  in  his  ministry  in  this  coun- 
try," or  whether  the  book  called  "  Quakerism  not 
Christianity,"  be  or  be  not  well  written,  or  whether 
"  Mr.  Barnes  could  conscientiously  use  the  Litur- 
gy," or  "  submit  to  Popish  vestments,  postures,  and 
forms,"  but  whether  the  Evangelical  party  do  or  do 
not  regard  the  ministers  of  other  denominations  as 
in  any  sense  authorised  ministers  of  the  gospel  1 
I  should  have  no  hesitation  whatever,  in  expressing 
an  opinion  on  all  the  collateral  subjects  thus  noticed 
by  the  Recorder  ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  an 
answer  to  these  questions  would  throw  any  light  on 
the  enquiry  how  the  Evangelical  party  regard  the 
ministers  of  other  denominations  ?  It  is  also  some- 
what difficult  to  know  the  precise  reason  why  the 
attention  of  the  readers  of  the  Recorder  is  turned 
from  the  simple  question  proposed,  to  these  collat- 
eral and  quite  irrelevant  subjects.  They  are,  doubt- 
less of  importance  in  their  place,  but  they  contribute 
little  to  the  elucidation  of  the  only  enquiry  which 
was  made  on  this  subject.  Is  it  the  proper  inter- 
pretation of  this  method  of  meeting  the  question, 
that  the  Editors  were  from  some  cause  reluctant  to 
answer  the  enquiry  proposed  ? 

Yet  it    is  not   difficult    to   ascertain   what   the 


140 

answer  would  have  been,  if  one  had  been  explicitly 
given.  For  (1.)  It  is  assumed  that  Presbyterians 
have  a  line  which  is  "  exclusive  and  arbitrary ;" 
(2.)  It  is  implied  that  it  is  proper  that  Episcopa- 
lians should  "  hav^e  a  line"  equally  "  exclusive  and 
arbitrary"  as  it  is  supposed  Presbyterians  have ; 
that  is,  one  that  is  as  "  exclusive"  of  the  ministersv 
of  all  other  denominations  as  it  is  supposed  the  rule 
of  Presbyterians  is  of  Friends  ;  and  (3.)  this  "  ex- 
clusive" position  of  the  Evangelical  Party  is  stated 
in  terms  which  cannot  be  misunderstood.  Thus  the 
Editors  say,  "There  must  be  some  line  and  limit  of 
admission  into  the  pulpit,  and  our  church,  to  discuss 
no  relative  questions  of  comparative  schism" 
[schism  being  in  the  view  of  all  genuine  Episcopa- 
lians the  sin  of  greatest  magnitude.]  "  has  wisely 
made  it  around  the  simple  body  of  her  ctvn  minis- 
try.^^  That  is,  the  ministers  of  no  other  denomina- 
tion whatever  are  to  be  admitted  into  an  Episcopal 
pulpit.  The  "  line  and  limit"  of  admission  into 
the  pulpit  is  "  made  around"  the  Episcopal  "body" 
of  ministers  only,  and  includes  no  others.  But  the 
"  pulpit"  is  the  appropriate  place  v/here  ministers 
of  the  Gospel  are  to  be  recognised.  They  may  be 
met  in  a  Board  of  Trustees  in  a  University  or 
Academy,  but  there  men  meet  together  only  as 
Trustees  ;  they  may  be  met  as  managers  of  a 
Tract  or  Bible  Society,  but  they  meet  there  only  as 
managers  and  not  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel ;  they 
may  be  met  on  a  platform  advocating  the  cause  of 
temperance,  but  there  they  meet  only  as  the  friends 
of  temperance.  In  these  places  they  are  no  more  re- 
cognised as  ministers  than  brokers  are  recognised 
there  as  brokers,  or  lawyers  as  lawyers,  or  physicians 
as  physicians.    They  meet  as  the  guardians  of  char- 


141 

tered  interests  ;  as  friends  of  science  ;  as  patrons  of 
literature ;  as  advocates  of  the  Bible  or  of  tempe- 
rance. To  know  who  are  recognised  as  brokers, 
we  must  look  to  the  Board  of  brokers,  and  ask  what 
is  "  the  line  and  limit  of  admisssion"  into  their  order; 
to  know  who  are  recognised  as  lawyers,  we  must  ask 
what  is  "  the  line  and  limit  of  admission"  prescribed 
by  the  courts  ;  to  know  who  are  recognised  as  physi- 
cians, we  must  ask  what  is  "  the  line  and  limit  of 
admission"  prescribed  by  the  medical  societies. 
There  "  must  be  some  line  and  limit  of  admission" 
into  each  of  these  professions  and  callings,  and  each 
one  "  has  wisely  made  it  around  the  simple  body 
of"  its  own  members.  On  the  same  principle,  it  is 
presumed,  the  Evangelical  party  in  common  with 
their  high  church  brethren,  however  courteous  they 
may  be  in  other  places  ;  however  they  may  regard 
the  ministers  of  other  denominations  as  good  and 
well-meaning  gentlemen,  and  however  ready  they 
may  be  to  co-operate  with  them  in  the  spread  of 
the  Bible,  and  in  the  promotion  of  temperance, 
science,  literature,  or  liberty,  yet  "  wisely  makes 
the  line  and  limit  in  regard  to  the  ministry  around 
the  simple  body"  of  the  Episcopal  clergy. 

This  interpretation  accords  with  all  those  facts 
in  the  case  to  which  I  have  already  adverted.  They 
never  invite  the  ministers  of  other  denominations 
into  their  pulpits ;  they  never  speak  of  them  as 
"  clergymen  ;"  they  never  ask  them  to  participate 
in  administering  the  communion  ;  so  far  as  any 
public  testimony  goes,  they  regard  their  baptism 
only  as  lay  baptism ;  they  quietly  acquiesce  when 
Papal  priests  are  admitted  to  the  ministry  in  the 
Episcopal  church  without  being  re-ordained,  while 
all   Protestants,  except  Moravians,  are  excluded; 


142 

and  lliey  never  lift  a  note  of  remonstrance  when 
the  public  indignity  is  shown  to  all  other  Protestant 
churches  by  demanding  that  their'ministers,  if  they 
become  Episcopalians,  no  matter  how  aged,  vener- 
able, learned,  or  holy  they  may  be,  shall  be  re- 
ceived according  to  the  '■'■  form  and  manner  of 
making  deacons"  before  they  shall  be  allowed  to 
exercise  their  ministry  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  the  United  States.  And  this  is  in  entire 
accordance  with  the  directions  in  the  Prayer  Book, 
which  has  drawn  the  "  line  and  limit"  of  admission 
into  the  pulpit  around  the  '  simple  body'  of  the 
Episcopal  ministry,  as  closely  as  any  churchman 
could  desire.  "  No  man,"  says  the  Prayer  Book, 
"  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon,  in  this  church,  or  suffered  to  ex- 
ecute the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried, 
examined,  and  admitted  thereunto  according  to  the 
form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  Episcojjal 
consecration  or  ordination.'''' — Preface  to  the  Form 
and  Manner  of  Making,  Ordaining,  and  Consecra- 
ting Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.  How  a  low 
churchman  could  regard  the  ministers  of  any  other 
denomination  as  authorised  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
it  is  impossible  to  conceive.  The  Prayer  Book  never 
designed  to  recognise  any  other  ministry  than  that 
which  has  been  Episcopally  ordained.  These  con- 
siderations lead  to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the 
Evangelical  party,  if  the  Editors  of  the  Recorder 
are  fair  expounders  of  their  views,  mean  to  be  un- 
derstood as  recognising  none  as  ministers  who  have 
not  been  prelatically  ordained. 

These  views,  on  an  important  subject  now 
agitating  the  Christian  churches,  and  destined  to 
agitate  them  still  more,  are  now  submitted  to  the 


143 

public.  The  motives  with  which  I  have  written, 
arc  my  own,  and  of  them  but  one  Being  has  a  right 
to  judge.  ■  Whether  the  argument  has  been  con- 
ducted with  a  proper  temper ;  whether  I  have  used 
such  words  as  became  a  Christian  ;  and  whether 
the  considerations  which  I  have  suggested  have  the 
weight  which  they  seem  to  me  to  have,  are  points 
which  the  public  are  well  qualified  to  decide.  "  I 
have  spoken  freely,  but  not  in  anger."  I  have 
meant  to  "  extenuate  nothing,"  nor  have  I 

"  set  down  aught  in  malice." 


THE  END. 


1 


DATE  DUE 

IMM  A  ^ 

1  1991 

Jun  J  '^ 

JUN 

1  Dly.;. 

JUN 

1 1)  1994 

JU 

N  1  ^  1^'^ 

^ 

''   •*  <>    ?J^ 

iJ 

HIGHSMITH       #  45220 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01030  0756 


